Taiwan: World Health Assembly

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as co-chairman of the British-Taiwanese parliamentary group.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support the application by Taiwan for observer status at the World Health Assembly.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we strongly support the principle enshrined in the WHO constitution that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. Observer status, by itself, does not automatically confer any rights or benefits on the holder: these must be negotiated separately. The EU has therefore chosen instead to press for more practical and meaningful measures to allow Taiwan to participate in the activities of the WHO.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and for her restatement of the Government's commitment to the WHO convention. However, she will understand that the decision by Her Majesty's Government to join the majority in the EU in going against Taiwan's application for observer status at the WHA's agenda in January is unfortunate, particularly as Japan and the United States have supported its inclusion. Given that entities such as the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and Palestine all have observer status, can she confirm that nothing in the WHO's constitution prevents states such as Taiwan achieving that status? Finally, what does she mean by the further action that the EU has in mind?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am delighted that we are at one with our European partners on the issue. My noble friend is correct that the Holy See, Palestine and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta have observer status. They can attend meetings, but they cannot vote. Taiwan, however, has a practical relationship with the WHO, attending some conferences and technical workshops, having informal exchanges with the WHO and, importantly, sharing information. In our view, those practical matters are the most important, for they have a direct effect on global health issues, including, for example, avian flu. Observer status would bring no additional health benefits.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that is a very encouraging answer, because there is nothing more sensitive in that region than the relations between China and Taiwan? They are bad enough at present, and there is no reason whatever to make them worse.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a member of the Taiwan parliamentary group. Do we not normally seek to apply a principle of universalism in healthcare and health policy, as exemplified in the Hippocratic oath and in the scope allowed to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent? Should not our Government say, frankly, that it is both wrong and foolish to exclude Taiwan from any aspect of the work and activities of the WHA on account of a dispute about its political status?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, of course, we agree that there must be universalism in healthcare. However, we do not believe that the exclusion of Taiwan is detrimental to the health needs of the people of Taiwan.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, no one wants to raise further tensions in the Pacific area between Japan, Taiwan, America, China and so on; I am sure that the noble Lord is right about that. Nevertheless, this is more than just one more island; this is a nation that happens to be one of the world's biggest producers of micro-circuits, electronic equipment and all sorts of other products. The people of Taiwan are extremely lively and effective. In January, the Minister of State said that the Government would push for further action, if necessary, to create and establish observer status for Taiwan. What further action has been taken since January and what further action is contemplated to ensure that, without too much offence to China's sensitivities, Taiwan has a sensible position in the World Health Organisation?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we are working diligently with our EU partners to encourage, for example, the WHO director-general to speed up and implement the new memorandum of understanding with China and to ask for clarification of the rules applied to Taiwanese participation in meetings. We are working on a very practical basis. We are trying to ensure that they are included in meetings and that global health needs are properly met, as far as possible, by the inclusion of Taiwan.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are familiar with the extent to which, in functional UN agencies, politics is played, and the politics of representation has been played with Palestine and Israel over many years. Do Her Majesty's Government and our partners in the European Union have an overall policy on how best to use functional agencies—doing what they do best—on issues of health, labour, the environment and so on, without getting completely bogged down in broader political and security issues that should be left to the United Nations?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the EU and the United Kingdom Government have a strong view on the practical implementation of such things. It concerns not just membership of the bodies but their meetings and the implications of the agreements taken at those meetings to take action on issues such as avian flu. It concerns working together to ensure that those issues are dealt with properly.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in her original Answer she made it sound as though Her Majesty's Government knew better than the Taiwanese themselves what is better for Taiwan? If that kind of impression is given, does it not sound a little as though we have not quite forgotten our colonial past?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am very conscious of our colonial past and of our present, which is not colonial. It is not that we know better than the Taiwanese; we are trying to look at the global situation and the situation in south-east Asia. We are trying to ensure that our health needs, as well as global health needs, are properly met. We believe that in the present circumstances our health needs can be met by Taiwan's present relationship with the WHO.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, as a member of the Taiwan parliamentary group, that there is a touch of double standards here? We were quick to embrace Taiwan as a member of the WTO when it suited all our purposes, but as money is not involved—merely health—on this organisation we adopt a rather different attitude and hide behind the EU.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is not a question of double standards. We are not hiding behind the EU. We are working with our European partners; we are not trying to hide. Trade is one matter, and membership of the WTO is clearly on a different basis compared with membership of the WHO. That is why we are acting differently.

Bulgaria: Michael Shields

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they are making to the Bulgarian Government about the case of Michael Shields.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary first raised Michael Shields's case with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister on 21 September 2005, and has since registered his continued interest on 18 October and 8 December. He also raised Michael Shields's case with the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Europe Minister on 16 December. My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe took the opportunity of a visit to Sofia to raise the case with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister on 28 April. In addition, our embassy continues to make representations to facilitate visits to Michael. Indeed, this morning, an application was made to the prison governor on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Obviously my concerns for Michael Shields and his family are primarily pastoral, but I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have been, and are, able to convey to the Government of Bulgaria the increasing anxiety over the safety of Michael Shields' conviction and the effect that it is having on people. There is nervousness about visiting Bulgaria and even investing in that country.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the European Commission's comprehensive monitoring report recently confirmed that Bulgaria met the political criteria for EU membership—the so-called Copenhagen criteria, which include stable institutions guaranteeing the rule of law and respect for human rights. There are risks associated with travel to any country. People must assess those risks and decide for themselves whether to travel. The Foreign Office provides very good travel advice and, just last month, my noble friend Lord Triesman issued some excellent advice entitled Support for British Nationals Abroad, which explains to people exactly what the British Government can and cannot do to assist nationals abroad.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what are Her Majesty's Government doing to extradite Graham Sankey to Bulgaria, as he, and not the convicted Michael Shields, has admitted to the attempted murder of the Bulgarian Georgiev, who is now maimed for life after trying to prevent a fight between two Liverpool fans in Bulgaria?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, there is an extradition treaty between the UK and Bulgaria, but extradition applies to those who stand trial, not to those who are called as witnesses. The legal process in Bulgaria has now ended and, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot interfere in the judicial process of other countries, just as they could not, quite rightly, interfere in our processes.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, although I understand why the Minister would not want to interfere in the judicial process in Bulgaria or comment on the safety of the conviction of Michael Shields, surely she is in a position to comment on the disgraceful decision of the Bulgarian authorities not to allow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool during his visit to Bulgaria to see Michael Shields for the compassionate and pastoral reasons that he described. Will she say what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to allow this young man to serve out the rest of his sentence in this country in an open prison, where he would at least be closer to his kith and kin?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the right reverend Prelate's visit that was refused, but I am delighted to say that we have made an application this morning that, we believe, will be successful. When the right reverend Prelate's visit was refused, the Supreme Court was in charge of visits. Visits have now reverted to the competence of the prison governor, who is very reasonable in these things.
	On the point about the prison transfer agreement, it is now for Michael to apply for such a transfer, with which the Bulgarian authorities and the UK Government will then deal. There must be agreement between Michael, the Bulgarian authorities and the British Government, but we will do everything possible to hasten things on this side of the Channel.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that she will register the worries and concerns of noble Lords on all Benches that there is some problem with the conviction? Will she also recognise that our disquiet extends to the point where we feel that we should give support to the Bulgarian authorities in discovering the truth of the matter, not try to say that their system is inferior to ours?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I note the concern expressed by the noble Lord and other noble Lords. Of course, those concerns are known by the Foreign Office. There has been a judicial process. I understand that, now that it has ended, it is possible for the case to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The family is considering that and, if there are things that must come to light, that is the appropriate place for them to do so.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, have the authorities here interviewed the man who has allegedly confessed to the crime for which Michael Shields has been incarcerated?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I fear that I do not have that information, but I will seek it and inform noble Lords appropriately.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has any advice been offered to Michael that he can apply to serve his sentence in this country while the matter is looked at again?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, Michael has been kept informed; he has been given information and advice throughout, as has his family. Indeed, on Friday, when the decision was taken by the Supreme Court, consular officials went to visit Michael and explained the due process that he could follow.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I believe that Bulgaria is waiting to join the EU. What representations have been made by the EU, as Bulgaria is clearly not meeting the standards that we would expect of any country that joins?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I do not know what, if any, representations have been made by the EU; I shall certainly find out. As the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know, the date on which Bulgaria and Romania can enter the EU could be next year or 2008. I am sure that cases such as this one will be properly considered when decisions relating to the date are taken.

Armed Forces: Helicopters

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Army has a sufficient number of helicopters to meet its transport capability needs; and, if not, when they expect to acquire the additional helicopters necessary.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we have sufficient helicopters to meet current operational requirements. However, the Ministry of Defence recognises that there are shortfalls in certain specific lift capabilities when considered against defence planning assumptions. In the short term, we are addressing those by looking at ways to deliver the maximum capability from our existing fleet. In the longer term, the future rotor craft capability programme is considering building our helicopter fleets for the future.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this morning, we heard the news of the tragic case of the Hercules shot down without the safety device repeatedly requested by pilots. On Thursday, we heard of Sergeant Roberts, who was killed without ceramic plates in his flak jacket. That raises the question of whether the Government are giving sufficient priority to the protection of our Armed Forces. Can the Minister confirm that all transport helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan have the necessary defensive measures against ground attack?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, it is my understanding that transport aircraft have the necessary defensive measures. With regard to the countermeasures that the noble Lord mentioned—breastplates for combat body armour and the suppressant foam—we are moving as fast as we can to address those issues. We must recognise that threats evolve quite quickly in certain circumstances. The Hercules was not regarded as being under such a threat previously. We are now addressing that and seeking to fit explosion-suppressant foam to our Hercules aircraft as quickly as possible.

Lord Garden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the shortage of helicopter lift to which he referred is at least 20 per cent, or about 14 Chinook equivalents, and that there is a consequential shortage of air crew trained to fly support helicopters—both Royal Naval and Royal Air Force—who do the flying for the Army? The Ministry of Defence sent a memorandum to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 27 February, stating that the already excessive periods of deployed duty would be made worse by the Afghanistan commitment. How does the Minister intend to increase the number of air crew without yet further reducing the availability of helicopters for operational deployment?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we recognise that we have a shortfall. Calculating the specifics is complicated, but our estimate is 15 per cent. We expect to address it by improving the serviceability and maintenance of the aircraft and getting maximum productivity out of the existing fleet. We also need to increase the number of helicopters. We are looking at a project that will aim to take decisions about the total number of battlefield helicopters during the next 18 months.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, as a member of the National Employer Advisory Board, I visited reservists in Basra about five weeks ago. I was surprised by what appeared to be a very low number of helicopters, especially in light of the fact that we had 72 helicopters at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland. How many helicopters are in Iraq? Recent newspaper articles suggested that helicopters were lying unserviceable in this country due to supplying spares to Iraq. How many such helicopters are there?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the total number of helicopters in Iraq is two Chinooks, eight Sea Kings, seven Merlins, five Pumas and six Lynx. I do not accept that we do not have sufficient helicopters in Iraq or Afghanistan. Having looked into this in some detail, I am confident that we have sufficient helicopters for operations. We need more helicopters, and we need to improve the availability of helicopters in the existing fleet. That involves improving the productivity of helicopters by taking a number of initiatives in conjunction with industry and looking at the total number in the fleet.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister answer the part of the previous question that he did not answer? Are all the helicopters in the possession of the Royal Air Force fully serviceable and able to operate? I do not mean on a day-to-day basis. The Minister need not look puzzled. He must know that it has been alleged that there are Chinook helicopters in this country that are not operational. Is that so? Will the Minister also make it clear—I am not sure that I understood him—that all the helicopters in Iraq are equipped with the foam device for the sealing of fuel tanks?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that I did not answer the second part of the question—he is absolutely right. Serviceability is running at about 78 per cent of aircraft on operations and at 59 per cent of total aircraft in the fleet, including those at home and on operations. The noble Lord was correct: we have eight Chinook helicopters in this country that are not available for use. That is due to a long-standing problem with the flight control system and the validation of those aircraft. I am confident that we have sufficient aircraft available for operations.
	The noble Lord asked me specifically about explosion-suppressant foam. That technique is not used on helicopters because they are fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks. Therefore, we are confident that all the helicopters in our fleet have the necessary protections against small-arms fire.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may offer my noble friend a small solution to the problem of lack of helicopters. Is he aware that the Royal Family, excluding the Queen and Prince Philip, undertook 400 journeys by helicopter last year, including such onerous journeys as those between Highgrove and Gloucester, and London and Portsmouth? Will he suggest to the Royal Family that it hands over some of those helicopters to the hard-pressed services and travels by train or car instead?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, that has no effect whatever on the availability of our helicopters either for operations or other military uses.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor spoke earlier about the obligation that the Government have to ensure that our Armed Forces in conflict zones are fully equipped with the best equipment. Will the Minister assure us that all British units serving in Afghanistan are equipped with the Bowman system and that no Clansmen there are leaking?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I assure the House that the Government are committed to supplying our Armed Forces with the kit that they need, without exception.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is it correct that the Government have withdrawn helicopters from air-sea rescue in order to thicken up our defences?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, no, that is not correct. No decision has been taken on air-sea rescue. It is not relevant to helicopter availability on military operations.

Water Supply: Thames Water

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make representations to Thames Water on the action required to meet the current shortage of water.

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is for Thames Water to take the actions that it believes necessary to meet its duties to supply water in times of a shortage of rainfall. Those actions set out in its drought plan may include application to the Secretary of State for drought orders. Although the company has had discussions with the department, it has not yet applied for a drought order, as it currently believes that it is able to meet demand.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. As the owners of Thames Water are involved in talks about a takeover bid, is he satisfied that their attention is properly directed towards the leaks and the inadequacy of supply that we are suffering? Are the Government really bereft of any means of attending to the obvious water shortage in the south-east of England?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are aware that the RWE group is considering the sale of Thames Water. However, Thames Water has a statutory duty on water supply—indeed, a number of duties. They continue during any period of sale and would transfer to any new owner. Water companies have changed ownership in the past. The economic regulator, Ofwat, ensures that any transfer of ownership does not prejudice the interests of customers.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, provided special arrangements are made for the poor when they have large families, there is growing public acceptance of the view that compulsory water meters would be an essential part of dealing with the problems that exist?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we certainly believe that metering has an important part to play in dealing with the issues, but it is not clear that compulsory metering is necessarily the appropriate answer. The water resources arguments for metering are not equally strong in different parts of the country. They do not themselves justify universal national metering, imposed on all households by the Government. Not every customer welcomes or saves money from having a meter. I can help my noble friend to this degree: we have adopted a fairly cautious approach, by allowing people to opt for meters for a trial year. After the end of that year, there is no right to change metered houses back to unmetered.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, how much money—to the nearest £10 billion or so—have we spent so far on the pointless EU water directives, bearing in mind that there was nothing wrong with our water before? Would the Government agree that the problems of our water infrastructure and supply could easily have been solved with a fraction of whatever that colossal figure turns out to be?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in the habit of saying this, but that question has nothing to do with the Question originally asked.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, how recently has the Minister driven down the embankment and seen the number of burst water mains apparently being totally unattended to? That surely constitutes a great waste of water. Also, during the weekend, I watched water coming from the roof of the block of flats that I live in and simply pouring down a pipe into the waste. Is it not possible to do something about the amount of rainwater wasted?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness asks an excellent question. Significant progress has been made in reducing leakages since the peak in 1994. Most water companies are now at their economic level of leakage, which is the level of leakage at which it would cost more to make further reductions in leakage than to produce the water from another source. The noble Baroness may be talking about Thames Water more than any other company. It has apparently reduced its total leakage for the first time in four years. However, she will not be surprised to hear that we believe that it still has considerable work to do.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I shall follow on from the question of the noble Baroness. Is my noble friend aware that, when leakages are reported to Thames Water, it claims that if those leakages are occurring on private land—even if the water is gushing into the street—it has no powers to go in and stop the flow? There are examples of leaks taking place week after week, with nothing being done about them.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I was not aware of what my noble friend has just asked about. Everyone agrees that the question of water leakages is very serious.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, will the Minister endorse the measures suggested by the Mayor of London that individual householders should take to save water, including preventing the unnecessary flushing of lavatories? My husband's favourite adage is, "If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down".

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, I endorse what the Mayor of London has said on the subject up until now.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the last time a Labour government faced a serious and prolonged drought they appointed a Minister with specific responsibility to deal with the matter, which was extremely successful. However, the Government have already repeated that action this time and, although there has been some rain, the drought persists. What further discussions—particularly with Thames Water—will the Government have to deal with the situation in the event that the drought persists for a serious period?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, if the situation requires, a water company can apply to the Environment Agency for a drought permit to provide additional means for it to take water from new sources or to alter restrictions on existing abstractions. If the additional measures provided by the drought permit are insufficient, a water company can apply to the Government for a drought order. It goes further than a drought permit and deals with discharges of water abstraction and discharges by people other than the water undertaker affected, and can provide for further restrictions on essential use. At this stage, Thames Water has not applied for either.

Piped Music and Showing of Television Programmes Bill [HL]

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to draw up a plan to prohibit piped music and the showing of television programmes in public areas of hospitals and on public transport; and to require the wearing of headphones by persons listening to music in the public areas of hospitals and on public transport. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Speakership: House Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	This report concerns the Lord Speaker's salary and pension. On 31 January this year, the House approved the report of the second Select Committee on the Speakership. In paragraph 54 of the report, the committee recommended that the Senior Salaries Review Body should be invited to propose a salary and pension arrangement for the Lord Speaker which,
	"would be appropriate vis-à-vis those of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees".
	The Senior Salaries Review Body considered the report of the Speakership Committee and the Hansard of the debate on it, as well as its previous recommendations concerning parliamentary salaries. It has proposed the following provisional arrangements, which it may revise during its next full review of parliamentary pay and allowances due in 2007 or after further reform of this House. First, it proposed an annual salary of £101,668, subject to annual uprating on 1 April, in line with the average movement of the mid-points of the senior Civil Service pay bands. This would give the Lord Speaker the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords. Secondly, it proposed a pension in accordance with the normal pension scheme provisions for Ministers, MPs and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees in this House. In addition, the House Committee considered that the Lord Speaker should be entitled to claim the same expenses as other paid office holders in the House of Lords.
	In the past, this House has accepted the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on expenses and salaries for Members. Several members of the House Committee were concerned about the possible consequences of cherry picking between SSRB recommendations. However, as today's Order Paper shows, not every member of the House Committee agreed with the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations in this case. Nevertheless, the committee recognised that the final decision rests with your Lordships.
	Finally, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure to be followed on the three amendments tabled to my Motion. In a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will move his Amendment No. 1, and the debate will then proceed in accordance with the outline speakers' list. A decision will then be taken on Amendment No. 1. If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, it will still be possible for Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to be moved, but the Deputy Speaker will propose them in a different form so as to leave out the words last inserted. If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, it would replace Amendment No. 1. Similarly, if either Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2—or both—are agreed to, and Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, Amendment No. 3 would replace any earlier amendments.
	Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 152).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Barnett: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "except that the annual salary of the Lord Speaker should be the same as the annual salary of the Chairman of Committees (£79,382 at 1 April 2005)".

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the amendment refers to a figure of £79,382, but including the allowances that are normally paid and are agreed in this case, the total would be £115,000, plus the pensions referred to. I should make it clear that I was one of the two Members of the House Committee who disagreed with the recommendations that have been put before your Lordships.
	The committee's case and, as I understand it, the case of those who voted for it, as the Lord Chairman said, is that we never normally oppose the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations. Traditionally, that is absolutely true and I accept that the SSRB is usually very good in its recommendations. It carries out full research, checking nationally and internationally whether the figure recommended is appropriate. But in this case it was impossible to do that. This is a unique job; there is no other comparison to be made. So the SSRB made no case but simply repeated that the salary should be equivalent to that of a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords. That is a very strange recommendation, if I may say so. The report of the Senior Salaries Review Body was, as the Lord Chairman said, made on the basis of debates in your Lordships' House and of the Select Committee report. In other words, your Lordships are as well informed and able to make a decision on this as the SSRB.
	The SSRB's recommendation should be looked at from a different standpoint. Whatever disagreements there may be about the whole question of the Speakership and the Speaker's salary, there is one point on which your Lordships are in unanimous agreement: we will remain a self-regulating House. In those circumstances, the position of the Speaker cannot be compared with a Speaker anywhere else, certainly not down the Corridor. The Speaker in the Commons has some real powers; the Speaker we would have, on the recommendations made and agreed by your Lordships, would be able to offer advice, which could be rejected by your Lordships. He or she would not even be able to give advice on the important time of Question Time—that has been specifically ruled out by your Lordships.
	So we are told that the recommendation is that the new Speaker should sit up to three hours a day on the Woolsack or in the Chair. I accept that that is quite a burden, having listened from time to time to hours of debate in your Lordships' House, but to say that it warrants a Cabinet Minister's salary cannot be serious. It is ludicrous to suggest such a salary for that kind of job. It is not a serious job in that sense. It should have the dignity that the House wants, but does not involve a Cabinet Minister's responsibility.
	If one rejects the idea of a Cabinet Minister's salary, one has to consider what salary should be paid for a job that would have some dignity and which we would care about. My amendment suggests that the salary should be the same as that of the Chairman of Committees, which would bring it to a total—including agreed allowances—of £115,039. Actually, the Chairman of Committees would continue to do a much bigger job in your Lordships' House. He would continue to chair many Select Committees and the new Speaker would chair only the House Committee. That being said, I recognise that many believe that my proposal puts too high a figure for the new Lord Speaker and I accept that. It is not possible to define an ideal figure in the circumstances because the job is unique. It should have some dignity attached to it, but the Select Committee on the Speakership recommended—and the SSRB also made the recommendation—that the Lord Speaker's salary should be based on the salary of a Cabinet Minister. That recommendation was made on page 15 of the first report of the Select Committee. The committee used only one word to justify the decision—it was not mentioned in our previous debates. It said that a Cabinet Minister's salary would be "appropriate". I hope that your Lordships will accept that it is anything but appropriate.
	My proposal is not ideal but, given that the salary proposed is excessive, as I hope your Lordships will accept, it is a reasonable compromise which would provide the dignity that is required. I hope that there will not be any Dutch auction here because the matter is too serious. I am suggesting a serious compromise figure and I hope that that figure will be accepted by your Lordships. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "except that the annual salary of the Lord Speaker should be the same as the annual salary of the Chairman of Committees (£79,382 at 1 April 2005)".—(Lord Barnett.)

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I feel very much the same as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, at least in principle. I had the honour to serve on the Speakership Select Committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and it is true that we referred the question of salary in our final report to the SSRB. It is the SSRB's recommendation before your Lordships today, endorsed by the House Committee.
	Like every noble Lord, I have the greatest admiration for the SSRB. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it faced some difficulty in this regard because the post that we have created is like no other. But it is a very modest post. The duties attached to our new Speaker will be very light indeed. It is a matter of opinion whether three hours on the Woolsack each day will be strenuous or otherwise, but the duties overall will not be very great. They will be largely of a representational nature and no less welcome for that. However, perhaps the SSRB failed to realise how modest the appointment actually is. Therefore I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnett is right to suggest that the salary ought to be significantly less than the one proposed.
	I know there are noble Lords who believe that we should never overturn a proposal from the SSRB. I really do not agree. Although we regard its proposals with the greatest care and almost always accept them, it is not the case that we have never overturned one of its recommendations. I think there are one or two occasions in the past when we have chosen to do that, so there is no principle at stake when we seek to do so on this occasion.
	I believe there is widespread agreement that the salary proposed is too great. The question before your Lordships is by how much it should be reduced below the figure from the SSRB proposed by the House Committee. Speaking for myself, I would prefer an even lower figure than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. My noble friend Lord Ferrers, who will speak in a moment, has an even lower figure in mind. However, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is certainly moving along the right lines and I shall support him in the Lobbies.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I think the salary recommended by the House Committee of £101,668 is excessive by all and any standards. To it are added expenses of about £34,000. The committee proposes that the salary for the new Lord Speaker should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, says, the same as that of a Cabinet Minister in the Lords. But why? The two offices are not remotely comparable. A Cabinet Minister carries heavy responsibilities; the Lord Speaker will have virtually none. And the proposed figures are only the start. Other expenses will be paid to the Lord Speaker, and a pension, all of which will be increased annually.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on his eagle eye, and on proposing a lower figure, but for an ex-Chief Secretary of the Treasury he is remarkably generous. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne's figure is getting nearer the mark. The figure of £29,946 proposed by my amendment is the payment the present Lord Chancellor is entitled to receive for performing his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords, and I suggest that that should be the figure the new incumbent should also get.
	I sometimes think that we have completely forgotten where we are coming from. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he does not want to spend one and a half hours per week performing his duties as Speaker of your Lordships' House, for which he is entitled to receive £29,946. He said that he wants to spend his time doing other things, but he has never said what. Most people resign if they do not like the job they are doing. Not so the noble and learned Lord. Not only does he not want to do the job himself, but he ensures that no other Lord Chancellor will do it either—a fundamental change in the constitution for which the noble and learned Lord is wholly responsible. Yet he prides himself on being Secretary of State for the constitution, and presumably its guardian.
	So we are forced into creating a new animal: a Lord Speaker. We all know that it is not going to be an improvement on what we have. I do not think that there is one person in your Lordships' House or elsewhere who thinks that our affairs will be better looked after under the new arrangements than they are at present. Then, having reluctantly accepted that we have to find a new person to fill the void created by the noble and learned Lord, we have to find something for him to do. It is unbelievable. People have hunted around trying to find jobs for the new Speaker to do. Will he be like a Commons Speaker? No. Will he deal with points of order? No. Will he control the House? Oh no. Will he tell obdurate noble Lords to sit down? No. What will he do? The answer is: mighty little, except sit, and be entertained by Liverpool City Council or whatever as some kind of House of Lords ambassador. That is a curious and unnecessary innovation.
	If ever there was an example of deliberately creating a job, it is that of creating a new Lord Speaker for your Lordships' House. He is not wanted—there is nothing for him to do—but he is to be paid £135,000, including salary and expenses. It is not surprising that there are a lot of eager noble Lords queuing up with their eyes sparkling hoping to be successful in the Lord Speaker jackpot. It is absurd. It will do the House no good and it will do the country no good. I suggest to your Lordships that it is a waste of money. When some of your Lordships say, largely tongue in cheek, I am bound to say, that your Lordships should be an elected or partially elected Chamber, others will say that if a non-elected Chamber—and not all of us are unelected—can pay to one of its non-elected members a salary of that size perhaps it would be better if it were elected, but of course it would be worse.
	One of the current buzzphrases seems to be "value for money", but I question whether noble Lords are providing value for money in the way in which they used to. When the set-piece debates were on Wednesday and the House sat at three o'clock on Thursday, the Chamber was full for the set-piece debates and it was full on Thursdays. Now hardly anyone attends the set-piece debates and the House is virtually empty at three o'clock on Thursdays. Everyone has buzzed off home. As a Lord-in-Waiting in the 1960s I remember frequently asking permission from the father of my noble friend Lord Goschen—I do not know whether he is in his place; perhaps he is not—who was then the Deputy Chief Whip, whether I could leave at a quarter to seven on a Thursday evening in order to catch a 7.30 train home. He usually graciously agreed. The daily attendance allowance then was £4/14s/6d. There were one or two life Peers then too. But now, together with an overnight allowance, it is £231, but we cannot be bothered to come to the House on a Thursday afternoon. I do not know whether that is value for money.
	Now we have this other huge expenditure. In 1997—Her Majesty's Government always like to compare what happens now with 1997—that part of the Lord Chancellor's salary that referred to his being Speaker was £18,855 and the Lord Chancellors of the day carried out their office with dignity. Now, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is entitled to £29,946, he says that he does not want to do the job. Instead, the public purse is to pay out £135,000 per annum for someone else to do it in his place. In the famous words of the late Lord Hailsham, I think that we have all gone stark, staring bonkers. It is certainly not value for money and it is certainly not in the public interest.
	The noble and learned Lord the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could do worse than look at what has happened to that part of the constitution which is carried on in this House since 1997 and to realise that under the aura and the influence of this Government it has not been an improvement. This is a pathetic and sorry saga. I suggest to your Lordships that if we are to have this constitutional upheaval the new Lord Speaker should receive the same salary as that to which the present Lord Chancellor is entitled.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, after that emollient speech I do not want to sound too abrasive, but we should not forget why we are where we are. If we do not forget, perhaps nothing like this will happen again. Let us remember that it all began with the Prime Minister believing that he was entitled with a snap of his fingers to abolish an office older than Parliament itself and thus dispose of his former pupil master.
	There were those who, to their lasting credit, were not prepared to go along with what the Prime Minister wanted. Unfortunately, some were. Because they were prepared to go along with that, the public are today being asked to fork out over £100,000 a year plus pension and expenses for a Lord Speaker, for whom there would have been no need whatever had the Prime Minister not decided to get rid of the office of Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
	I find it deeply distasteful that people should have been scratching around trying to find work for a Speaker to disguise what, if not a non-job, is a job which took up an hour or two of the Lord Chancellor's time on only about 150 days a year. That is why I support with enthusiasm the amendment which would give the lowest salary to the incumbent. But the truth is that any of these amendments is better than the Motion in the name of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. It is outrageous that we should be invited to accept as proper a salary which really means—do not let us forget this—if you look at the hours that the Lord Chancellor sits on the Woolsack, £1,000 an hour plus expenses. That is what we are really talking about.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the speeches we have heard—particularly that of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—have made it plain where they are coming from. It is very interesting that they have been made by noble Lords who have throughout opposed wholeheartedly the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, which I also much regret. But they are, with respect, harking back to what has already been decided and forgetting what the House has already decided. We must not allow ourselves to join them in the mire of nostalgia where they are seeking to take us.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why not?

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, one good answer to that question is: because the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wants to be there; therefore, it must be the wrong place to be. The more important answer is that the House has already decided certain things. It has approved unanimously the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It has approved methods of election and so on for the Speaker, and we have agreed, albeit reluctantly—I suspect the noble Earls and I share this reluctance—that because the Government have decided not to allow us a Lord Chancellor, we have got to go down this route. Also, we have approved a report which says what the new Lord Speaker shall do. Everybody so far has concentrated solely on his role in sitting on the Woolsack and has entirely forgotten what is in the report about his role in representing this House, both in this country and abroad.
	Your Lordships spend a lot of your time—rightly—whingeing about the fact that this House is not properly appreciated and that its work is not properly understood by the rest of the country. I wholeheartedly agree with these whinges. But when somebody is to be given a role to try to remedy that and to go out and be an ambassador and explain what the House does and do it properly, are we really to send him out on a pittance which shows our contempt for the office he holds? If he is to do any good in this job, he must be a person for whom the House has shown respect and who is entitled to respect by others. If he is a £29,000-a year salaried clerk, who on earth can be expected to want to hear speeches by him explaining the role of this House?
	The noble Earls and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, are, with respect, harking back and trying to undo what has already been decided. We are stuck with what has already been decided. Let us not spoil it for what is, with respect, a halfpennyworth of tar.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the decision has been taken. We have had to live without the hereditary Peers and the House has not folded up and disappeared. For goodness' sake, if we are going to have this person, do not belittle them from the start. They simply must have dignity in the position which has been created. I certainly concur with what the last speaker said about them receiving, for instance, the American president or any president from a foreign country. It has been a most dignified affair until now, and I would hate to see the sort of scratching and biting that is going on—whether in the press or in this Chamber—belittling something that is going to happen and damn well ought to have been done with dignity. I beg of your Lordships not to reduce it to the amount of money proposed by my noble friend but to make it a reasonable sum. Who knows, perhaps he might get a dress allowance.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, two small matters have not yet been mentioned. One is that if the Lord Speaker is going to be a £29,000 salaried clerk, there may not be very many candidates for the job. The other point is that while he may have to sit on the Woolsack for only three hours every day, he will have to be here every sitting day, so he may find it very difficult to earn a living outside the Chamber. Both those points need to be kept in mind.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the specific things about this House is its unbelievable ability to find difficulty in making up its mind. I speak as somebody who had the misfortune to be elected to the Select Committee to look at this matter under our chairman, who managed to make it work very well. I am appalled by the reactions of some people here. This is not a modest post, but if it does not have any value at all we might as well get rid of it very quickly. It is what your Lordships decided to investigate, however. I went along in a moment of madness, pressurised by the noble Lord the Convenor, and at the end of it—I was surprised because I thought we would never get to the end of it—we came back and had a debate in the House. The House was immediately determined that we should reform the committee and go through the same subject again with all the same witnesses. We are talking about the remuneration of a person who will, I hope, be the representative of the House of Lords. If people want to devalue that they can do so, but we are not terribly heavily regarded already. It is quite extraordinary that we come back to the House again to decide what to do.
	The total staff costs of this building top £23 million per annum. The total cash requirement for running it is £80 million a year. The sum of £100,000 a year is not a great deal of money. The amendment moved by the noble Lord suggests that that amount is disgracefully large. That may be the case if one is hiring a chief executive officer of a small engineering company in the Midlands, but it is a bit out of date by today's standards. Given the amounts that we have behind us, we are wasting an awful lot of time talking about a level that is indefensible. The issue was pressured from the beginning by Members who came on to the Select Committee totally cynical from the outset. They have moved in the same way at each point, so that we are back here again. For us to go away now and say that we are going to start all over again, no doubt with a new Select Committee, would do this House no credit at all.

Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Deputy Speaker in both Houses. Now that the House has decided on a new experiment to have a Lord Speaker in place of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, it seems to me essential that the holder of that office should have the prestige and dignity that are in keeping with the importance that this House attaches to our Parliament as a whole and to our constitution as a whole. That is my fundamental point. I am sorry to find that I am in disagreement with a number of noble friends and others whose judgments I often respect.
	The House has decided very clearly that it does not want a House of Commons-type speaker. We wish to preserve the long tradition of self-regulation on which this House prides itself. That inevitably means that the duties of the Speakers of the two Houses will be different. However, there are important state occasions on which the two Houses combine. One obvious example is the jubilees of Her Majesty the Queen, when many of us have assembled in Westminster Hall to present a Loyal Address to Her Majesty, to which she has been graciously pleased to come along and reply. Who gives the lead on those occasions? Not the Prime Minister of the day, but the Speaker of the House of Commons, who gives the lead to that House as its leader. I hope equally that, when we have our new Lord Speaker, he will do likewise. It is very important that the two posts should be equal. Our Lord Speaker should in no way be the little also-ran. The two should be equal in prestige and in the job that they do.
	Another very important occasion is when we have visiting heads of state. We quite often invite them to address both Houses. This is done jointly; the two Houses combine. If the head of state is from a Commonwealth country, we assemble in Westminster Hall to hear their address. If the head of state is from a non-Commonwealth country, we assemble in the Royal Gallery. We do it together as two Houses. It seems to me of great importance that the Speaker of the House of Commons, representing the House of Commons, and the Lord Speaker, representing our House, should be equal and have an equally significant role.
	It is for those reasons that it seems to me that our House Committee has got it right. If this were to come to a vote, I should vote in favour of the recommendations that our House Committee has put before us with regard to salary, pensions and allowances.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, essentially we have heard two arguments about why we should reject the House Committee's recommendation to us. One is that the SSRB has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the job of a Speaker of this House. The other argument, which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put forward, was basically that he did not want it in the first place and now he does not see why the taxpayer should have to pay for it. That argument has already been settled in the House. It is really the SSRB recommendation that we should concentrate on.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that we never normally oppose SSRB recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he has the greatest admiration for the SSRB. Both noble Lords then went on to qualify those statements. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the post was like no other; the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said the job was unique. Our House Committee—our elected committee—knew that the job was unique, yet it was perfectly prepared to send it to the SSRB. The SSRB is indeed a committee which we trust with our own allowances. This House is like no other. If we are prepared to overturn the SSRB recommendation on the basis of the unique role of this House, we might start questioning some of the other issues rather closer to home.
	I do not think that these arguments stand up. Our committee knew what it was doing by sending the issue to the SSRB. The SSRB knew what it was doing in making the recommendation it did back to our committee, which accepted it. It has been through three decision points already and now comes to us again today.
	This House is hugely undervalued. It is undervalued by another place. It is hugely undervalued in virtually every conversation I hear about it—in the media and elsewhere. If we undervalue it in the way that has been suggested by some noble Lords this afternoon, we will have only ourselves to blame if it goes on being undervalued in the way that so many of us object to.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, recently there have been rumours that people have been waving cheques about for large amounts to get into this House and to draw a very small salary. The demand for membership to this House is quite high. Rumour even has it that the demand to place bottoms on the Woolsack is also quite high. Do we need to increase this salary?
	The worth of Members in this House is shown in their ability, in what they say and in how they contribute to the debates here, rather than in the size of their allowance. It is right to draw attention, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers did, to the completely and utterly unnecessary gross amount of public money which has been spent by the noble and, in this case, the not very learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on completely wrecking the High Court and the Lord Chancellorship. The cost of that is £10 million, although the court ran on £180,000 and his salary was £29,000. This was an utterly unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers' money for no improvement in justice, and no improvement in what is going to happen in your Lordships' House. I can therefore see no possible reason why taxpayers should fork out for us to be self-indulgent, and pay somebody a lot of money—as one of my noble friends said £1,000 an hour—for sitting in a chair. That is not what public money is for.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I am one of those noble Lords who has supported the Motion. Anybody would think that the House Committee was staffed by Martians, who had absolutely no conception of what went on in this House. But they are representative of all of us and they have come up with this recommendation. From some of the comments that have been made, I sniff old battles being revisited. I really believe that. I am sorry if that is not true in the case of my noble friend Lord Barnett. That is technically not correct, but perhaps I may call him that as we have sat cheek-by-cheek, as it were, over the years.
	It is a job that we can create. We have heard that the officeholder will sit for three hours every day, but that is the least important part of the job. He or she will be representing us across the world and—I regard this as the most important part—will be going around the United Kingdom talking to people of every age and every class about what this place is, trying to repair some of the damage that the ignorance has caused over the years. When I worked in marketing about 150 years ago, we had the phrase, "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys", but I am not even sure that we are going to get very many monkeys at the sort of figures being talked about today. If this matter goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote in favour of the Motion.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is not an old battle—

Baroness Amos: My Lords—

Lord Lucas: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Baroness brings the debate to a close, I wish to make a very short statement. This is not an old battle; it is a new one. The argument that the respect that we have for the Lord Speaker depends on the salary is completely at odds with a House which is paid nothing and demands respect for that. This battle is about whether we should be a paid House and about setting a marker as to what that pay should be.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the arguments of those who have proposed amendments this afternoon—my noble friend Lord Barnett, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I have also listened very carefully to other noble Lords who have spoken. I am well aware that some in the House would prefer there not to be a Lord Speaker at all. That is of course a perfectly respectable position to hold, but it is not the decision that the House has taken, and I think it is time to allow the clear decision of the House to be implemented—and to be implemented graciously rather than grudgingly.
	If the House of Lords matters, the new post of Lord Speaker, our presiding officer, matters as well, and it is important that we do not send the wrong signal about that today. I have sat through, and indeed replied to, a number of debates when noble Lords have argued about the important role played by this House and the importance of ensuring that the role and independence of this House is understood by the wider public. I see the Lord Speaker's role in public engagement, which has been mentioned by some noble Lords, as being a key element in the role of our presiding officer. In defending the self-regulatory nature of this House, noble Lords have, in moving their amendments, concentrated on the Speaker's role in the Chamber and have not commented on the wider role of the Speaker which was recommended by the Select Committee and which existed in the job description that was then sent to the SSRB. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
	I urge the House to consider very carefully the implications of rejecting the SSRB's recommendation. The SSRB is independent of Parliament and we asked it to make a recommendation to the House. While it is open to the House to reject the recommendation, I think that, having looked at the research, it would be the first time that we had ever done so. I ask the House on what basis we would decide to pick and choose. What will the House do when we consider the uprating of allowances? Part of the function of the SSRB is to protect the House from any accusation of bias, and it is important that we remember that point. It is the function of the SSRB to determine appropriate salary arrangements. It made it clear that the proposals are provisional. I think it would be far better for the House to accept the advice that we have sought from the SSRB and then to review the arrangements, as suggested, during our next review of parliamentary pay and allowances.
	It is regrettable that the differences that still exist in the House about a Lord Speaker are being reflected in a debate about the salary of the Lord Speaker. I remind the House that the job description which was sent to the SSRB mentions not only the role in the Chamber, but also the Lord Speaker's role as chairman of the House Committee and as a member of the Procedure Committee. The Lord Speaker would also take over the Chairman of Committees' formal responsibility for the security of the Lords' part of the parliamentary estate—not insignificant. The Lord Speaker would also have a strong representational role, acting as non-political spokesperson for the House at home and abroad and an important educational role, ensuring that the public understand the significance of the work of the House. I am very sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is so dismissive of that wider educational role. Having the public outside understand the very good work being done in this House, having a representative who can talk to young people about the nature of our parliamentary democracy and the role that this House plays in relation to that is an absolutely essential part of the role. I hope that the House will endorse the House Committee's recommendation.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the latest in a series of debates on the role of the Lord Speaker and it is the latest in a series of debates putting into effect the implications of the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which has been agreed by the House and which I have no intention of seeking to reopen or to overturn.
	This, of all matters, is a House matter. For my Benches, it will be an entirely free vote. But some of the confusion that is sometimes raised on the subject is because nowhere does there exist a single document that lays out all the changes that were implied by the Lloyd committee report. There are changes to procedure, staff, pay, pensions, accommodation and costume—for those who are interested in such matters. At least three committees of the House, with different memberships, have been involved on all those different aspects, yet nowhere can one find a comprehensive, single document to explain what all the changes will be—at least, not until they have all been debated and agreed in a piecemeal fashion. That it is one of the reasons why I, a member of the House Committee, supported the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in the representations he made then, and why I shall be supporting him this afternoon if he presses the matter to a Division.
	I was also much taken by the arguments made by my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Ferrers. I have one question to put to my noble friend Lord Ferrers before I decide whether to support him. Is the salary that he is recommending a salary in itself or is it a salary on top of the normal expenses paid to Back-Benchers? That could make a substantial difference and would demonstrate that the Lord Speaker was being treated in the same way as most Members of this House with an extra amount on top. No doubt he will find an opportunity to clarify that in due course.
	I disagree with those who say that by supporting the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, we are attacking the SSRB. It is true that we normally accept the conclusions of the SSRB; that is because the SSRB undertakes an exhaustive study of what is required. On this occasion, it took no evidence from anyone—I am not aware that it discussed the salary with any Member of this House—and had no idea on which basis to proceed, which was why it fell back on the first report of the Lloyd committee. So on this occasion, I have no difficulty whatever in disagreeing with the recommendation of the SSRB.
	Some noble Lords have talked about the prestige of the Speaker. I yield to no one in my desire for the Lord Speaker to receive the highest prestige, respect, status and dignity possible. The Speaker will be an important representative of this House. But prestige does not rely on big bucks. Indeed, that dignity could well be reduced by overpaying someone to sit on the Woolsack and do the job that has been recommended.
	I cannot see that the role of Speaker equates at all to that of a Cabinet Minister in this House. They are clearly different jobs with different roles and responsibilities. The job of the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, carries far greater prestige and authority than that of the Lord Speaker.
	The Lord Chairman of Committees, in his introduction, said that in due course there will be a review of the said salary. I have never heard of a salary being reviewed downwards, so I expect that that will not happen. So should we not start off with a slightly lower salary and if, after a year or two, that is deemed to be insufficient, the review can take care of that?
	I will be voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I will do so gladly and I urge the House to do the same.

Lord McNally: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has revealed, the two strongest votes in the House Committee against our recommendation were those of the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Strathclyde. As you can imagine, one takes on such a combination with some trepidation. For me, "Barnett and Strathclyde" has resonance from my youth of those contortionist acts that used to appear at the end of the Blackpool North Pier. True to form, they have both performed a little bit of contortion this afternoon.
	My task is really to give a sense of leadership to my troops behind me, given that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, this is a House matter and therefore a free vote. I remind Liberal Democrats that, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, we were enthusiastic supporters of the changes that have taken place as part of a broader and wider constitutional settlement. Indeed, not only did we advise that the Lord Chancellor should leave the Woolsack, we wanted a full-blown ministry of justice to take over some of the heavy responsibilities of the Home Office and give those matters more coherence. We are moving only a little way in the right direction at the moment.
	I therefore hope that we on these Benches follow through the logic of what we have done so far, which is to reach a certain part of a new constitutional settlement. I remind my colleagues that the powers and responsibilities given to the new Lord Speaker are very close to those in the evidence that we gave to the committee. Although I know that there is a certain part of Liberal Democrat DNA that likes to be skittish about the leadership, I shall be going into the Lobby in support of the main Motion and against the amendments. We will be putting the Whip in with the Government Whip—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McNally: My Lords, we are perfectly entitled to do so. Well we are putting two Whips in. Two Whips will spontaneously go in. As we have seen, much of the debate has in fact—

Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain something to us which I find quite obscure? Although it is an issue for the House, does his party have a Whip on it or not?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall be very clear; we have no Whip on this at all. But I have served on the House Committee and have taken decisions on which I would advise colleagues.
	Sorry, I meant to say that we would put Tellers in—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McNally: If they are needed, my Lords—after this show of eloquence, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, might withdraw. We have had the trip down memory lane, and now we are talking about how decisions are implemented. We need to pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the way in which she has led the way in defining this wider educational role for the Speaker, which was outlined in the original committee report and was very much echoed by the Hansard Society report under the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
	I hope that we will support the House Committee. It seems odd that we are singling out this office in this curious way. I wonder what we would do in subsequent years; would we return to this issue when the salary was reviewed? I think it is sensible. Two committees have recommended going to the Senior Salaries Review Body, which has made a recommendation. I must say that the weakness of the other case is that we have had not one option but three options. The truth is that we could have had 30 options, because we all have different views—hence the commonsense suggestion that we should take the advice of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
	It is always worth remembering that Washington offered to do the job for nothing when he became President but, when Congress saw his expenses, it decided that it was safer to pay a salary. What we have done and the way in which we have done it is the safest way forward for this House. Indeed, it gives dignity to the office, as a number of noble Lords have said.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees speaks, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde asked me a specific question and I wonder whether I might answer it. He asked whether my amendment referred simply to the salary or whether it included expenses. My amendment refers to the third point of the third item of the House Committee's first report of this Session, and would replace an, "annual salary of £101,668". My amendment would also include the reimbursement of the same expenses of paid office-holders in the House of Lords, which, as the Chairman will see in Appendix B, are calculated as 220 times the overnight subsistence.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that we can now reach a conclusion in this debate. It has been a good debate, but I am afraid that I certainly do not intend to try to reply to every point made by every noble Lord. Three amendments are before the House. As I said at the beginning, each amendment can be taken in turn and if, for example, Amendment No. 2 were agreed to after Amendment No. 1 had been agreed to, Amendment No. 2 would replace Amendment No. 1. I hope that that is clear to noble Lords.
	I must pick up one or two points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gave me a very hard time indeed; he said that my Motion was a disgrace. I merely remind him that it was approved by the vast majority of members of the House Committee, a committee that is appointed and elected by your Lordships' House as a whole and which I therefore hope has some authority in the House. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said—he was followed by many other noble Lords—the House has already approved the report of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. We will get a Speaker. I know that some noble Lords still do not want one, but the House has agreed that already. The Lloyd report stated that we should refer this matter to the SSRB and we did so. That is what the SSRB came back with and that is why the Motion is before your Lordships today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the House had not always agreed with every recommendation of the SSRB. That is not my information. I have no example of the House ever rejecting a recommendation from the SSRB or its predecessor, the TSRB—going back to 1971—and then approving a different sum from that which was recommended.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am advised that we once rejected one of the recommendations of the SSRB. I will write to the noble Lord.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the noble Lord perhaps thinking of 1984, when the House amended a proposal put forward by the then Leader concerning car mileage? That proposal was not based on a recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body. I look forward to receiving the noble Lord's evidence, but it may be a little late for the result of today's debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, complained that there was not yet a document which laid out the job description and terms and conditions of the job of the new Lord Speaker. Of course there is no such document, because we have not settled today's matter yet. Another meeting of the Procedure Committee tomorrow will deal with one or two other matters, but I can assure the noble Lord that there will indeed be a document which sets out the job description and the terms and conditions when all these matters have been settled. It will available after the next report of the Procedure Committee has been approved by the House.
	I am not sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said as much, but his amendment is based on what the Lord Chancellor would be entitled to take as Speaker of this House. I should make it clear that the present Lord Chancellor does not take that amount of money as Speaker of this House; I understand that he does not even draw the full salary of Lord Chancellor to which he is entitled.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said that what matters is the amount that the noble and learned Lord was entitled to claim.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is what I said. I did not want the House to get the impression that he did claim that. That is all that I have to say in reply to this debate. I hope that I have answered any questions which were asked of me.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is giving leadership to his troops, as he put it, I feel much more optimistic about the chances of my amendment. Two main points have been made against it; first, that we should always support the SSRB and, secondly, that involving the wider role of the new Lord Speaker.
	I always enjoy the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his remarks today were no exception. However, amusing though he was, this is not an occasion for being amusing; it is a serious matter. I tried to be serious in the proposal which I put to your Lordships. Equally, it is not an occasion to attack either the Lord Chancellor in person or his role. That would be to fight an old battle.
	I made it clear that while we would normally not oppose the SSRB—the Lord Chairman said that we had never done so—the SSRB had previously always done the research and given us national and international comparisons. On this occasion, it could not. It is a unique job. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to consider whether its recommendation should be accepted.
	My noble friend Lady Symons seemed to be suggesting that if the recommendation comes from the House Committee or the SSRB, we should not discuss it at all and just accept it. That is the case that she seemed to be making. I see her shaking her head, so she was not making it.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Barnett: My Lords, that was the impression that I had, and may have been the impression that the House had, so I hope the noble Baroness will not mind if I correct it.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my point was that the noble Lord said that the reason that this was reviewable was because the job was unique. As I pointed out, the committee knew that the job was unique when it put it to the SSRB in the first place.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the House Committee is not unique in that sense. It put forward recommendations, but the House of Lords itself has the right to reject them, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I did in Committee. I do not accept the noble Baroness's case, but I am sure that she will make it again on another occasion—although not in your Lordships' House, because she does not seem to want to do that.
	Again, there is a simple issue here. Do we agree with the House Committee and the recommendation of the Chairman of Committees that we should pay a Cabinet Minister's salary? I personally believe that to be excessive and no case has seriously been made for it. Or do we go for my amendment, which many think is too high, but which I think is a reasonable compromise?

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 162.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	It is understood that the Bill is being taken through the House at some speed mainly because it is important to give momentum to the political process in Northern Ireland. We cannot allow matters to drift indefinitely. I acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, that this presents difficulties to your Lordships. In recognition of this, we have already had several meetings with those who are interested. We are happy to help resolve any further doubts before next Monday. If any noble Lords wish to seek advice on possible amendments, we would be happy to give such help as we can.
	This is a brief Bill, with two substantive clauses and three schedules. It is largely temporary in effect. The Assembly, in the form it is set up in this Bill, will in any event not sit beyond 24 November. The Bill opens the way for the Assembly to meet on 15 May, the first time in nearly four years. The key task is to select a new executive, opening the way to devolution in Northern Ireland. 24 November is the deadline in the Bill to restore devolution. It is fixed and unchangeable. We need politicians to take responsibility, engage with each other and show leadership to their communities. The Government will help, but there are limits to what we can do. The biggest obstacle is lack of trust on both sides.
	For unionists to be willing to share power with republicans, they can reasonably ask to be confident that republicans have turned completely away from paramilitary activity and will not accept, either overtly or with a nod and a wink, criminal activity.
	Unionists can properly also ask to know, before criminal justice and policing powers are devolved, that support for the criminal justice system and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is absolutely unequivocal—but that concerns the second phase of devolution, which is not for 24 November. However, republicans and nationalists also have understandable needs. They want to know that unionists are serious about sharing power with them and power-sharing must not be an ever-receding target. Reasonable-sounding arguments for testing things a little further before going into government can always be found by Members of this House, the other place and politicians in Northern Ireland. But republicanism has come an enormous distance. It has moved on massively since the IRA statement of July last year and the act of decommissioning later that year in September.
	The 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission was published last week. It confirms how far republicanism has come. The IMC had already made it clear that the IRA was no longer a terrorist threat. The new report says:
	"It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it . . . We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack".
	On criminality, which rightly causes a great deal of concern, the report says that the Provisional IRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members. It welcomes Gerry Adams' comments that anybody involved in criminality should face the full rigours of the law. We all have views on the past conduct of the republican movement and all is not yet perfect, but we have to acknowledge that there has been, and continues to be, momentous progress. Representatives of unionist parties—including those from the Democratic Unionist Party, whose members I look forward to welcoming very soon in your Lordships' House—have acknowledged that. That is a very good sign.
	That acknowledgment now needs to be built on, through engagement and dialogue. You do not have to agree with someone about everything—you do not have to agree about anything—to be willing to talk to them. The Assembly is the place for dialogue. There is a strong record of people working together. The Assembly proved, when it met under devolution, that people could work seriously together, despite widely different outlooks. There is ample opportunity between 15 May and 24 November for them to take the helm of the Northern Ireland political process.
	I now turn to the Bill. The framework is a simple one. Clause 1 brings back the Members of the Assembly in order to prepare for restoration of devolved government—which means selecting an executive. Schedule 1 sets out how the Assembly will operate in this phase of its work. As I have said, the Bill sets a limit on achieving devolution of 24 November. Under Clause 2, if an executive has been selected by then, we move immediately into devolution, with Assembly elections postponed until May 2008. Schedule 2 to the Bill is concerned with the implementation of this phase—the success phase.
	If the Assembly does not succeed, we have to move forward by other means and Schedule 3 comes into effect. The Assembly election scheduled for May 2007 will be postponed until a point at which it can fulfil its proper role. In more detail, the Assembly will meet under the Bill without its formal powers. The direct rule arrangements will continue in this phase.
	The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to refer to the Assembly the selection, first, of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. If that is successful, he will use the running of the d'Hondt process to fill the other ministerial posts in the executive. He can also refer other matters to the Assembly as he thinks fit.
	This is a similar process to that which was followed when the Assembly was first elected in 1998. The Secretary of State can make directions about procedure, including the appointment of the presiding officer. He has already announced that he intends to appoint Mrs Eileen Bell as presiding officer. She has seen a good deal of Northern Ireland politics, and is well liked among the parties. I agree that the provisions of Schedule 1 appear highly directive, if indeed not dictatorial, but the Assembly has one key task, which is to select an executive. Selection of a presiding officer and the making of standing orders, both of which in ordinary circumstances require the Assembly to operate by cross-community support, could cause prolonged hang-ups, and we do not want the Assembly distracted from its main function by procedural wrangling.
	We want to work by consensus, and we are consulting closely with the presiding officer and the political parties about the way the Assembly will operate and its standing orders, an illustrative draft of which we have sent to the parties and placed in the Printed Paper Office. We will welcome all comments, including any from your Lordships. Meetings have been taking place with the parties, both at the end of this week as this Bill passed through the other place and this week, discussing these issues and points of detail about the way the Assembly will operate.
	We are ready to refer to the Assembly a range of matters that will feature among the key concerns of a devolved administration. These might include education reform, local government reform, water charges, rate rises or the rating system. As we have said, we would take account of the Assembly's views on such matters, especially if they had cross-community support.
	We have been asked to undertake that we would always act on views expressed by the Assembly or hold matters back pending devolution. As the Government, we are accountable to Westminster for the good government of Northern Ireland pending the restoration of devolution. We cannot and will not hand over control to a body without responsibilities. They can take the responsibilities any time they want; we are not stopping them. All they have to do is elect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, run d'Hondt and set up an executive, and they can have the responsibilities by the end of this month if they so choose. But until they have those responsibilities it would be quite wrong for us to hand over the powers. As direct rule Ministers we have to be free to put forward proposals that we believe are in the public interest, but a cross-community view from the Assembly would have to be taken seriously by Ministers and Parliament. I repeat, the sooner devolution is restored, the sooner the Assembly will have complete authority over these issues.
	Work on legislation is important, but the key purpose of the Assembly under this Bill is to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and fill the other ministerial posts. If that happens, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to make an order restoring devolved government. The new executive would take office and all the Assembly's powers and responsibilities would be restored. The direct rule powers would come to an end; indeed, there would be repeal from the statue book.
	If restoration is achieved, we have provided that the Assembly's life should be prolonged for a year beyond May 2007, when an election was due. We thought carefully about proposing that, because it is unusual, and one does not want to interfere in the democratic process. It is a difficult proposition to put forward. We think the alternatives are worse. After years of effort to bring the parties sufficiently close together to work in an executive—and we can get that up and running between 15 May and 24 November—we really cannot sentence the members who take those responsibilities to an immediate attack of election fever when they have to go and fight an election next May. We thought that would be counterproductive and poisonous to the spirit of working together. If we are serious about devolution, we cannot do that.
	Your Lordships will know that some parties are seeking changes to the arrangements in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 under which devolution would operate. That is quite legitimate, and indeed we have put forward some such changes in the comprehensive proposals of December 2004. We hope the parties in the Assembly will sort these issues out. As a government, we will do all we can to help.
	I want to be clear about a point of detail in Schedule 2, because there were misapprehensions in the other place, if anyone reads the debate. I have to say that I read Thursday's debate from start to finish: the first time I have read a full debate from the other place in donkey's years. I am much reinforced that it is simply true—I repeat that it is true—that the quality of debate in your Lordships' House is far superior to that in the other place. I speak as a supporter of the other place, but heaven above, I had to go through that word for word. I was in Northern Ireland on Thursday so I was not able to tune into any of the debate.
	I want to be clear about the misapprehension. Once the devolved institutions are restored, and I have said that they can be by the end of this month if they so choose, they will be free to act as they wish within the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That means that the Assembly, along with the executive, can repeal or change any of the things that we have done as direct rule Ministers. There are provisions in paragraph (3) of Schedule 2 that prevent the bottom dropping out of the laws passed under devolution, but they will not stop the Assembly from overturning the direct rule legislation. If the members want, for example, to spend more money in a certain area and legislative change is required for that, they can do it. However, because they have the responsibility, they will have to make the cuts elsewhere to fund the extra spending. That is the point; they can do it if they want to. In other words, they are not prevented from doing that; that is not the case with some of the misapprehensions raised in the other place.
	When an Order in Council has gone through, it is like an Act of Parliament. I know that there are differences, but that can be amended, repealed or overturned—it is in the Assembly's prerogative to do so—and carry on the business of government in Northern Ireland. So there is not any problem about that whatever. However, this is the success scenario towards which we are working. I repeat what I have said before and what other Ministers have said. The sooner they get back to exercise power the better, because the longer direct rule lasts the faster we will push the reform programme. We make that absolutely clear. There is a massive reform programme on in Northern Ireland at the moment and we will push it faster the longer we are there.
	If we do not obtain an executive by 24 November, the Bill is clear and unconditional. The May 2007 elections will not take place, the Assembly Members will go home and from that date they will receive no pay or allowances. This is not covered in the Bill and does not need to be, because there are existing powers on the subject. It would not be right to pay Members of the Assembly any further allowances after three and a half years on generous pay without having to carry out their role. Many Members might understand and some of the MLAs might say that it is not their fault, but the public will not accept their receiving golden handshakes. This is not a threat and they will not see it as such; it is a reality and it is reasonable. It is a recognition of political reality.
	If the process failed by 24 November as a government we would then take forward energetically the running of Northern Ireland. It is not something that we look forward to. All our efforts are aimed towards restoring devolution. Of course an Assembly and an executive could at some future date be restored, but it would not be on anyone's agenda for quite a while. The Bill enables an Assembly election to be called later subject to an affirmative vote here at Westminster. We do not want things to come to this. The Assembly was a success in the short period that it worked. It set up an enormous amount of work and set itself quite an agenda, which is being left to direct rule Ministers to continue. But it can do that again and it can have the joy of finishing off some of the work that it set in train all those years ago. If the Members are back they can do that, and if they are not we will finish it for them. We believe that the Bill offers the most promising framework in which success and devolution in Northern Ireland can happen. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for setting out in his usual clear and forthright manner the details of this short Bill and the context in which the Government are introducing it.
	Let me begin by making it quite clear that the Opposition support the Bill. We have had our differences with the Government over the years on their conduct of certain aspects of the peace process in Northern Ireland but today we share their objectives in wishing this initiative through to a successful conclusion.
	Devolution has now been suspended since October 2002—itself the fourth suspension since 1999. Yet the Assembly has continued to cost the taxpayer more than £80 million per annum simply to maintain it. As the Government have made clear, it is not sustainable to go on like this—paying Assembly Members' salaries for a job of work that they are no longer carrying out. That is the reality.
	So, like the Government and all the main parties in Northern Ireland, we want to see a democratically accountable devolved government functioning in Northern Ireland. We want to see decisions over the issues that affect people's daily lives taken by locally elected politicians in the Assembly rather than through the unsatisfactory procedures of direct rule that we struggle with here at Westminster. We want to see politicians from both the main traditions working together for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland.
	In all of this we are at one with the Government. We look forward to the Assembly's recall on 15 May, and, if it proves impossible to elect an executive within six weeks—the most likely scenario—I hope that one can be formed by 24 November. But let us not delude ourselves about the obstacles that still have to be overcome. Judging by the statements of the Prime Minister and Bertie Ahern, they have come to the conclusion that the only remaining obstacle to devolution is the Democratic Unionist Party's unwillingness to share power with Sinn Fein. In other words, they seem satisfied that Sinn Fein has now taken all the steps required of it to warrant, under its mandate, a place in the government of Northern Ireland.
	I have to say to the Minister and Her Majesty's Government that this is most definitely not how the matter is seen by the majority of people of Northern Ireland—not just the DUP but across the broader unionist community. Distrust of the republican movement—Sinn Fein and its IRA associates—remains widespread and deep.
	Of course, a great deal of progress has been made over the past year. This was acknowledged by the DUP deputy leader, Peter Robinson, in an important speech to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body in Killarney last week. The IRA's statement last July formally ending its armed campaign was hugely significant and welcome, as, I believe, was the act of decommissioning that took place in September. Gerry Adams has made it clear that the "war"—in the sense of seeking to achieve a united Ireland through violence—is over. The Independent Monitoring Commission's 10th report was published on Wednesday. Again, many of its conclusions were encouraging—a sign that republicans are moving in the right direction.
	But, for many people in Northern Ireland the question marks remain. There is the legacy of 30 years of appalling and savage terrorism. Anyone who lives in Northern Ireland knows somebody or a family, from both the unionist and nationalist traditions, who have been affected by or suffered from IRA terrorism. So let us not underestimate what we are asking unionists in Northern Ireland to do when we ask them to enter government with Sinn Fein. And we should not be surprised if the community is hardly falling over itself to embrace Sinn Fein simply on the basis of one IMC report—welcome as it is—that gives the IRA a cleaner, though by no means a completely clean, bill of health.
	Just before Easter the Garda intercepted a lorry carrying €300,000 of stolen vodka and three known members of the IRA were arrested, one of whom was released early under the terms of the Belfast agreement. This prompted the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland to assert:
	"As long as the IRA continues to exist and the IRA constitution continues to be treasonable and subversive then problems will continue to remain".
	We agree with that assessment.
	Both the IMC and the Secretary of State indicate that in recent months the IRA has sought to prevent its members engaging in illegal activities. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that the IRA is "cracking down" on members—whatever that means in practice. It used to mean knee-capping and worse. So we are right to be hopeful but, at the same time, cautious.
	Then there is the issue of policing. Sinn Fein still refuses to support the PSNI. In the words of the IMC, this is,
	"still very controversial on the ground and has not been resolved to date within PIRA despite robust discussion".
	To my mind it is simply inconceivable that a party can take up seats in any devolved government in the United Kingdom without supporting the police, the courts and the rule of law. So Her Majesty's Government must accept that this issue has to be resolved before an executive can be formed. Without it, any chance of meeting the November deadline will be very small indeed.
	There is, of course, a simple test of whether the Government now accept the republican movement's bona fides. If they believe that the IRA is permanently and irreversibly committed to peaceful and democratic means then presumably there is no longer any justification for IRA membership being a criminal offence. If the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat, then presumably the Government will remove it from the list of terrorist organisations in Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Act. Would it not look rather odd in November to ask unionists to form a government with Sinn Fein, when that party remains inextricably linked to an organisation that is still proscribed under the Terrorism Act?
	Looking ahead to the recall of the Assembly itself, the Government have said that it will be able to debate the issues likely to face an incoming executive, such as education and local government reform. The Secretary of State in the other place pledged to take the Assembly's views into account. Surely, the Government should go further than that. My honorable friend David Lidington, the Shadow Secretary of State in the other place, suggested at the weekend that the Government should have a freeze on such controversial pieces of legislation until after the 24 November deadline, or at least until such time as it becomes clear whether or not an executive will be formed. Will the Minister look seriously at that suggestion? It would be a travesty if the Assembly came to an agreement on issues in the coming weeks only for the Government to ride roughshod over its views.
	In the sad event of devolution not being possible by 24 November—I have asked this question before and have had a satisfactory answer but I will ask it once more—will the noble Lord reaffirm that plan B does not involve any move towards joint authority between London and Dublin over Northern Ireland? Welcome as co-operation on a range of matters is between two states that share a common land border, the internal governance of Northern Ireland is and will remain a matter for Her Majesty's Government alone, accountable to this Parliament. That is a very important message to reiterate across the country and particulary the Province.
	We have come a long way in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years. For most people, life has improved immeasurably and I readily acknowledge that. I want nothing less than for Northern Ireland to be a peaceful, stable and prosperous part of the United Kingdom. We still have some way to go, however, and we should be in no doubt about that. We wish the Government well but are clear that devolution on an inclusive basis will happen only when all parties seeking ministerial positions subscribe to the same democratic values. It is against this background that my party shall support the Bill before your Lordships' House this afternoon.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister, who with his usual prescience has already answered some of the questions I was going to put to him. I hope that my remarks will be a little more optimistic than those we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. When we responded to the Minister's Statement last week we gave a general welcome to the Bill before us today. It is good to see that there is a now a clear target set down in legislation for the restoration of the Assembly. I know that all noble Lords will agree that the people of Northern Ireland are best served by their local politicians making decisions on local issues. That is vital. Those issues include, as we heard from the Minister, education, the provision of local transport, healthcare and encouraging the economy. All of those ought to be made accountable to the very people who will be affected by the decisions that are taken. It is fervently to be hoped that this government initiative will succeed in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland and that the Assembly will become a permanent and secure institution.
	However, there are huge difficulties to overcome before we can reach that point. I sincerely hope that the Government will face up to and address those difficulties, as I believe they will, in the coming weeks and months. We have said before and must reiterate that there remains a fundamental and deep mistrust between the political parties. Indeed, at last week's meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, we heard in graphic detail just how polarised those parties now are—far worse than we had been led to believe. Therefore, this cannot be a quick-fix solution.
	We have always called for inclusive, round-table talks between all political parties in Northern Ireland. That is the only way in which a lasting settlement can be achieved. Will the Minister therefore now give us a categoric commitment that all the parties will be involved in the negotiations towards a settlement? It must be clear to the Government just how necessary this now is. Far too often in recent years, initiatives have failed when secret deals with two parties have failed; that is not a recipe for long-term working together in a devolved government. If the Government want to achieve a lasting settlement, as we all know they do, they must ensure that all the parties work together to achieve it. If they do not do so, I fear that they will find themselves with another temporary deal which will ultimately come unstuck.
	We on these Benches welcomed the IRA's statement in July last year and its subsequent acts of decommissioning. The subsequent IMC reports have served to reassure us that the terrorist threat from the IRA has now diminished. We also welcomed the last IMC report—the 10th—which was published last week, and its assessment that the IRA is committed to a peaceful path. It was indeed good news to learn that in the period covered by that report there were no shootings or paramilitary attacks attributable to the IRA. We have always deplored such horrific acts in a democratic society and we are indeed hopeful that these barbaric practices are now at an end.
	We remain deeply troubled that some IRA members are still engaged in a substantial level of criminal activity. The IMC believes that some members, including some senior members, are still involved in crimes such as money laundering and smuggling. We hear that the leadership of the IRA is encouraging members to refrain from taking part in such acts of criminality. Nevertheless, it is still a very worrying state of affairs. It is essential that IRA members demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law and immediately stop all forms of criminal activity. If this does not become a reality, we are in danger of seeing the whole process of normalisation undermined by these individuals.
	We fully support the excellent work of the Organised Crime Task Force, but it seems to have scarcely scratched the surface. Does the Minister agree that if Sinn Fein were to join the Northern Ireland Policing Board and give its unequivocal support to the police and the criminal justice system, that would greatly assist the people of Northern Ireland in believing statements from the IRA or Sinn Fein that they are opposed to any form of criminal behaviour?
	Further, do the Government accept that changes are necessary to the structures and working of the Good Friday agreement and the 1998 Act? I know that the Government will be aware of the difficulties posed by the system of designations in the past. Can the Minister assure the House that if such changes are deemed to be necessary before the Assembly is able to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister there will be adequate time for the House to debate them?
	I now turn to the specifics of the Bill. I have a number of questions about its operation but I know that the Minister will be pleased that they are few. He may also be aware that these Benches have already tabled some amendments, through which we hope to have a full and considered discussion in Committee on the various points that I will raise briefly today.
	Our primary concern is about the ability of the Assembly to act in relation to areas on which the Government legislated during suspension of the Assembly. I am happy to hear the Minister confirm that the Assembly can amend or repeal any Orders in Council which were passed in Westminster since October 2002. He is quite right: when this was debated in the other place, the Minister there gave an assurance that the Assembly could do what it liked when the powers were restored. At that time he did not explain the meaning of some of the sub-paragraphs of Schedule 2 so I am grateful to the Minister for having reassured us that the Assembly, when it is up and running, will be able to amend or repeal Orders in Council. Perhaps it would be better to discuss that matter in Committee if there are any other points to make concerning Schedule 2. Does the Minister accept that it would be wise to put on hold until after the 24 November deadline some of the more contentious and controversial policy decisions that the Government are proposing to put before Parliament?
	We agree with the Government that if a restoration order is made before the deadline set out in the Bill, it would make sense to postpone the date of the next Assembly elections until May 2008. We also agree with the Government's analysis that this will give the Assembly time to bed down and tackle some of the very real issues that face Northern Ireland before the Assembly is dissolved and the parties have to face the electorate again.
	It is therefore with pleasure that these Benches note that a firm date has been proposed in the Bill. We have always been against the setting of election dates by order. We are pleased that the merits of such a proposal can be discussed and debated before the whole House. We are also happy about the provision which would allow the Minister to set an election date in the future if the Assembly is not restored in the autumn. Although it is to be hoped that there will not be any need for this provision, we accept the Government's reasoning that there should be the ability to recall the Assembly and hold an election at some time in the future.
	Finally, we hope that in Committee the Government will be able to give us a detailed explanation of the purposes of Clauses 3 and 4 and how they envisage them being used. I reiterate that we welcome the Bill before us today and we hope that after three and a half years of suspension this initiative will lead to devolved and stable government in Northern Ireland.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, first, I apologise for arriving after the start of the debate. I am afraid that the speed and efficiency with which your Lordships' House dealt with business has caught me on the hop rather than public transport, which I usually blame.
	As a whole I welcome this Bill and I think that everyone knows where I stand: it is my sincere wish to see the restoration of a Northern Ireland Assembly. When I spoke on the local government order last week, I made fairly clear my disquiet over how the Government had allowed matters pertaining to the 1998 Belfast agreement to be corrupted by secret deals with Sinn Fein. That type of deal is not new: it has consistently made the unionist tradition sceptical of the Government's sincerity; it wrecked my party and it wrecked David Trimble—the most forward-looking, balanced and fair-minded leader Northern Ireland ever had. I wish I could be sure that we are not being dragged down that road yet again—that the Government are not sitting with yet more secret arrangements in place with Sinn Fein/IRA and in the belief that they can bully me, and people like me, to acquiesce.
	I should at this point say how grateful I am, as I think the people of Northern Ireland in general are, to the Independent Monitoring Commission for the uncompromising manner in which it has examined and reported on the illegal activities of paramilitaries on both sides so that government have been unable to ignore the stark reality of paramilitary criminality. To a large extent, it is the work of the IMC that has allowed us to begin to move forward once again. However, the IMC cannot be an alternative to government dealing straight and dealing fairly.
	There is one substantive point that I wish to have clarified—we will not see it in the Bill but it is contained in the draft Standing Orders that were issued to MLAs last week and, if my interpretation is correct, it must be addressed in the context of the Bill. Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly are chosen by the d'Hondt mechanism, which is a form of proportional representation. The strengths of the political groupings in the Assembly at the time that the d'Hondt mechanism is triggered will determine the number of ministries that each party or grouping achieves. However, in the draft Standing Orders issued by Secretary of State Hain, the strengths of political groupings are to be set in stone on 15 May—in two weeks' time—and not at the time that d'Hondt is triggered.
	Surely, in any parliamentary assembly, it makes sense to allow provision for the maximum flexibility, especially in this case, rather than to set an arbitrary date for determining the strengths of the groups. I understood that it was always the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the creation of coalitions in order to provide a representative government in Northern Ireland—hence, the Government should be encouraging such coalitions rather than placing an insurmountable obstacle in their path.
	A number of independent Members in the Assembly should be given the opportunity to join a party or group that might form on the Back Benches if and when the intervening talks begin to yield dividends. That would ensure that the vote of every Member in the Assembly counted equally, especially as the autumn approaches and major decisions have to be taken.
	The aim of the Bill should be the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that the Government—perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not—in this single proviso are making it more, rather than less, difficult to get the alliances and agreements that we all want. Clarity on that point is necessary at this stage. I am willing, on behalf of my party, to work in co-operation with the Government on this issue, if they so choose; otherwise, it may be necessary to table an amendment—and I give notice that we may need to do so—to give effect to the resolution of this concern during the remaining stages next week.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I would like to join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for outlining the purpose of the Northern Ireland Bill. Also, in common with many other interested people in the Province, I welcome the fact that the Government have taken an initiative. The Assembly's existence must be brought to a head and decisions taken. I note with alarm the attempt to put pressure on the unionist MLAs of all types to take part in the creation of an executive; I am concerned that this shows a mindset which is unhelpful to the proposed process.
	I live in Northern Ireland and have done all my life. I acknowledge that over the past 10 years much has changed for the good. Belfast is a beautiful and now prosperous city. The vast bulk of civil unrest is a thing of the past—thank goodness. Naturally, some difficulties still exist and could cause major problems. The advent of Sinn Fein/IRA's big time criminality must be addressed with vigour if the unionist community is to have enough confidence to accept Sinn Fein in government and so make this Bill worth while.
	However, the activity of last weekend in south Armagh is exactly the type of event to damage such confidence. I am informed by reliable sources that republican terrorist Dessie O'Hare, known as the Border Fox, was back in south Armagh for the first time in many years. O'Hare is believed to be responsible, over recent decades, for some of the cruellest murders. The security forces believe that he may be responsible for up to 30 brutal murders. On Saturday, the police visited his home, where I believe he was at that time. They failed to arrest this most wanted of terrorists. If the Northern Ireland Bill is to have any chance of success, side deals, or anything that looks like a side deal, with Sinn Fein/IRA must not happen.
	The on-the-run legislation of earlier this year was rejected by most people but if wanted terrorists are allowed back into Northern Ireland and cannot be made accountable to the law in any form, the position has become very serious. Among his many brutal murders, the Border Fox killed a young mother, Margaret Hearst, and then opened fire on her small baby. He killed an 80 year-old pensioner in Markethill and, on a Sunday night, slaughtered three elders of Darkley Church inside that church after the evening service.
	The Home Secretary is in trouble for releasing potential criminals back into the community, but here is a case where O'Hare boasts of his crimes and his whereabouts are known. On whose authority were the police unable to arrest him and was that after another deal with republicans? How must the decent people of south Armagh, let alone the relations of those murdered, feel to have the Border Fox back in the area? Compared with Charles Clarke's misjudgments, this is much, much more serious and it demands an answer from the Government. Media sources say that a major homecoming party is to be organised. I assume that the security forces will require him to help with their inquiries before that. Loyalist human rights activist Willie Frazer of FAIR has, this morning, lodged a complaint with the Police Ombudsman concerning possible neglect of duty.
	When or if this Bill progresses, I will be putting down an amendment at the next stage concerning the existence of the cross-border bodies and related activities if the Assembly is no more after 24 November 2006. Many noble Lords will know that I have taken an interest in the implementation bodies because of the callous, one-sided way in which I was treated while, for four-and-a-half years, a chairman of one. In general terms, the cross-border bodies have not, by any standards, been a success. Vast sums have been spent on their creation for political purposes, yet the only advance seems to be that of the low standards of Irish governance into a part of the United Kingdom. When I inquire from former senior civil servants why HMG seem to have no control over these bodies, I am told that the instructions are to do what the Irish want. These are not bodies of equal status and I wonder why. I will return to this topic on another day. I support the general thrust of the Bill.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think the Government have this Bill just right. I congratulate them on it. In this week of all weeks, I suppose praise of that kind is welcome from whatever source. I welcome my noble friend's statement about a clear deadline in November and that there would be no slippage from that. Again, Northern Ireland has a history of deadlines not being met or adhered to; therefore, it is particularly welcome that the Government will stick by this deadline absolutely.
	It is obvious that there is still too high a level of criminality in Northern Ireland. However, I am not convinced that the leadership of the paramilitaries, be they republican or loyalist, are in complete control of some of their members. That does not make criminality any the less to be condemned, but it does mean that in deciding whether the loyalists and, above all, the republicans, are trying to adhere to the peace process as it should be, we must take into account that keeping control of members of paramilitary groups low down the line may not always be possible, no matter how hard the leadership tries to make that happen. That does not excuse criminality, but it means that we need to put it in perspective in trying to judge what is to happen by next November.
	Sinn Fein must join the police—that is to say, of course it must take part in the PSNI boards. I believe that, in the fullness of time, Sinn Fein will do so. The party has dropped hints to that effect. But I also believe that the fullness of time may be too late for this process. I very much hope that Sinn Fein will move more rapidly to do what it knows it must. Sinn Fein has its eyes on the Irish elections, which will take place in spring next year, and its position would be much strengthened in those elections in the Republic if it were to sign up to the police in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein knows that. What happens to it in the Irish elections is no direct concern of ours, but its joining the police, or taking part in the police institutions, is a concern of ours and I very much hope that it will move forward.
	Along with other Members of this House, I was at the most recent meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body last week. We heard a very interesting presentation by some of the leading members of the DUP. I went away moderately encouraged about where they were seeking to go and the part that they would play. But there will still have to be movement if anything is to happen by November.
	Short Bills require short speeches. I intend to adhere to that rule. I want to say something about strands 2 and 3—that is to say, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British/Irish Council. They are not directly covered in the Bill, but the Secretary of State has referred to them. Those bodies would benefit from an element of openness and transparency. I appreciate that they are more in keeping with being elements of a cabinet than of a legislature. Nevertheless, the decisions that they make are important. They will be important if, as we all hope, the Assembly is restored and the institutions are up and running by November, if not before that. If the worst were to happen and that is not the case, it will be even more important that there is transparency in the proceedings of those two bodies. I hope that that will be possible.
	I wish the Government and the parties in Northern Ireland good luck. I very much hope that before we debate Northern Ireland too many more times, the Assembly will be restored, there will be a functioning executive and we can settle back to other matters of concern.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by offering the Minister and the whole House my deep apologies. I do not know how I came to be late and I am very sorry. I must further apologise for the fact that I shall not be very brief.
	I have four concerns. One is that of education. Martin McGuinness's last act as Minister was to announce the intended abolition of selection in Northern Ireland schools and the replacement of the grammar schools by comprehensives. That was never discussed by the Assembly, because it was then dissolved, but it appears that under devolved government, that policy is to be implemented by HMG under direct rule. Ministers are not waiting for the people to decide through their elected representatives, although the Armagh statement recognises that the Assembly could prepare for government by considering such issues and Ministers,
	"would naturally take account of views which command cross community support within the Assembly".
	How do the Government justify pushing through a measure that was never discussed in the Assembly and which, whatever view they take, is of the deepest concern to all citizens of Northern Ireland? In six months at the latest, we shall know whether the Assembly is going to work and devolved government begin. Why cannot HMG let the education issue, like many others, wait for those few months, rather than imposing an expensive and divisive policy on which the public have had no voice? Schools in Northern Ireland have been especially successful, both in academic terms—and the country needs research brains for the future—and socially, because they successfully mix all creeds in otherwise divided areas. I understand from the very useful briefings we have received that the Assembly, once it is working again, can change decisions made under direct rule, including decisions that affect local government and education. It seems, therefore, both confusing and unnecessary to begin a process of change that the Assembly could well not confirm. In his statement on 6 April, the Prime Minister said:
	"In Northern Ireland crucial decisions will be taken on the economy, health, schools and local government. Is it not more sensible that they be taken by the directly elected representatives of the people those decisions will affect, not by Direct Rule?".
	I hope that Her Majesty's Government will stand by that approach, which of course puts the onus on the parties to agree to make the Assembly work, which is much to be desired.
	The second issue is the deals which the two governments are likely to make with the various parties to persuade them, for perfectly respectable reasons, to abandon entrenched positions and to work together to make the Assembly viable. There must be no more deals like the infamous agreement made with Sinn Fein/IRA on on-the-runs, which was rightly summarily rejected by Parliament. It was particularly shaming, I thought, that the official reason was that it was being withdrawn at the request of Sinn Fein/IRA, which had presumably belatedly realised the effect it was having in the United States.
	I am deeply concerned that more concessions will be made in the field of justice. We know from both the Independent Monitoring Commission—that admirable institution—and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the Diplock courts currently remain the only way in which the threat to juries and witnesses can be prevented from denying justice. The intimidators have not gone away. Only last year, Gerry Adams reiterated Sinn Fein's refusal to recognise British courts and the UK's criminal justice system. The McCartney case has still not come to court, and Sinn Fein/IRA's solution to that was to offer to kill—no doubt they said execute—the IRA men who killed him. Gerry Adams told the people of Omagh that, although PIRA was not responsible for that bomb, it would not allow witnesses to testify in court because Sinn Fein/IRA did not recognise British justice. He reiterated that statement in my presence last year, describing British justice as an oxymoron—he has become very grand in his language.
	Sinn Fein/IRA have, however, a new mantra, which must not be allowed to pass for a change of heart. Martin McGuinness is quoted in the 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission as unreservedly condemning a robbery of a consignment of spirits in March. He said:
	"Anyone involved in activity of this nature, no matter what political party they support, needs to be arrested, charged and brought to court before a jury of their peers".
	That does not mean that Sinn Fein/IRA recognise British courts. A "jury of their peers" is a splendid phrase which either means a Sinn Fein/IRA-constituted and approved body—I have a feeling that jury selection would be on a very special basis—or is designed simply to end the Diplock courts, which sit without a jury, for reasons we all know.
	Sinn Fein/IRA's attitude to British justice must be measured by their sabotage of the McCartney trial and the Omagh process, and by their shooting of one of the first young Catholic graduates entering the police as a result of the Patten reforms. Asked then what the attitude of Sinn Fein/IRA would be to the new PSNI intake, Gerry Adams replied that it would be unchanged. I cannot emphasise too strongly what a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland it would be if we allowed Sinn Fein/IRA to join the Police Board and have access to and influence over police operations in the forlorn hope that they would not use that to pervert the course of justice. It is endemic in the thinking of Sinn Fein/IRA to wish to achieve absolute control of the organs of power. There must be no deals that weaken and undermine the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach would never agree to similar concessions and the ceding of power in the Irish justice system, and I suggest that the Irish are not yet ready to abandon their parallel court.
	We well know that, from ballot-rigging to organised crime, Sinn Fein/IRA have a damning record of operating outside the law to achieve their political ends. It is worth remembering, however, that the Independent Monitoring Commission continues to report on and express concern about so-called dissident groups. The Continuity IRA is still active; it is still recruiting, still training and targeting the police and the military, still intimidating and still committed to terrorism. The same is true of INLA and RIRA. The Army Council of the IRA would never tolerate a truly independent dissident organisation. It would be a sign of weakness, and members of the PIRA are nothing if not control freaks. These so-called dissidents were a familiar feature of underground communist movements in Europe—easily disavowed, but both tolerated and directed.
	CIRA, RIRA, INLA and the rest have certainly benefited from PIRA resources in terms of money and lucrative criminal activity, and they remain a terrorist threat. On the mainland, they would be so regarded if they were, for instance, splinter groups of militant Islamic bodies. Terrorism has not gone away from Northern Ireland yet; it is merely that, for the present, PIRA can, through the use of large sums of money, vote-rigging, organised crime and intimidation, continue to manipulate the republican community fairly extensively, while leaving the business of recruiting and paramilitary training to the so-called dissident groups. The murder of Denis Donaldson could safely be left to them by PIRA. Violence remains a part of the culture of republicanism. My fear is that almost any concession in the field of criminal justice may be made too soon to secure devolution. The people of Northern Ireland are British, and they have a right to live under the same criminal justice system as all other citizens.
	My final concern is exiles, which the Monitoring Commission's 10th report puts high on the agenda, as they should always have been. The paramilitaries exercise control through fear and the threat of exiling. This has continued this year, and it is not just the innocent exiles whose lives are ruined. As the commission says, others live their lives in fear, and the paramilitaries continue to usurp the role of the police and the courts in exercising their version of community discipline, which is sometimes, as the commission says, quite wrongly called an unofficial justice system. Unless Sinn Fein/IRA, and all paramilitaries of all persuasions, can be made to bring this practice to a complete end, their control over those paramilitaries, whose activities in funding them are no doubt valuable to them, must be in question. The commission states:
	"Only when a group has both ended this practice of exiling and has allowed those it had previously exiled freely to return can it be said to have given up illegal activity in this regard".
	The present position is that the McCartney family have been driven from their homes and there is no freedom for exiles to return. When Martin McGuinness was asked about exiles two years ago, he replied that they could never come back as it was not in the interests of the community. These people had committed no crime in the eyes of the law. Until that position changes, there can be no question of regarding Sinn Fein/IRA as a party which obeys the law and respects human rights. I hope that we will give full credit to the police, and their manifest, growing success in gaining the trust of formerly alienated communities. That must not be jeopardised by letting the wolf into the fold.
	It is salutary to compare the £28 million committed as of 2005 to working with victims and survivors with more than £155 million which has been spent so far on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I hope that the Government have established the post of a victims and survivors commissioner, as they told the Northern Ireland Committee that they intended to, and that his or her remit will cover the shocking absence of all help for those exiled by the paramilitaries.
	I am sure that good things will come of this Bill, but we must continue to be extremely wary. We must remember that we need to support the forces of law and order for the sake of all the people.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I will be relatively brief since most of what I was going to say has already been said. Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill. We really want to see an Assembly back in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Government on their efforts at achieving that during the past few years and on bringing this Bill forward.
	There has been great progress, but this Bill's success in re-establishing the Assembly depends on Sinn Fein's accepting the police and on its involvement or otherwise in criminality, on which I shall concentrate. The success of the Bill depends most of all on the way in which the Government acknowledge and play with their knowledge of criminality. The Government have cherry-picked successive reports on it. For instance, as Mr Hain said, the report states that,
	"we have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members".
	I totally back the IMC—it has done an amazing job, which when it first came into existence we thought it could not do. However, I do not understand why, when we were talking about the decommissioning of weapons, it all had to be done in secret, but here we are just told that there are "signs" and the Government cannot even tell us what "signs" the IRA/Sinn Fein leadership is using to reduce the criminality.
	My information is that within IRA ranks the "signs" are much more words than any real action. As we have already heard, Gerry Adams has said that those who are caught should be taken to court and suffer the rigours of the law. What I have heard—which is fairly sound—is that it is being said in general, "If you go about in a criminal manner, and you are caught, you are on your own". That is very different from what we would like to expect from the leadership trying to dissuade people from taking part in crime. The same paragraph of the report said:
	"We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role".
	First, "some" and "may be" are somewhat indefinite. Secondly, if you go back a little, the report states:
	"Some members, including some senior ones, are still involved".
	There is a contradiction, not in what the IMC says, but how the Government interpret what comes out of it. I think that they should more readily accept what is obvious in the report to anybody who understands the English. They would gain more credibility.
	Along with that go such actions by the Government as those on 16 January when the Policing Board—I am no longer on it—had a confidential meeting. It did not remain confidential for longer than about five minutes, so I can say something about it. The confidential meeting was with the police, with all the crime agencies, the NIO and so forth. This statement appeared in the press afterwards:
	"Ulster's top detective told Policing Board members yesterday that the IRA was still engaged in organised crime".
	The NIO Minister who maintains that the IRA is inactive sat just a few feet away from me. Security Minister Shaun Woodward, who has stated publicly that he believes that the IRA is keeping to its word over criminality, was at the confidential briefing. This is a serious own goal.
	However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned, sadly, we must accept that certain things are still going on. I believe that the Government are failing themselves and us, and losing credibility, by not accepting that, while pushing Sinn Fein to take action—while pushing forward with this Bill, which I am wholly behind.
	I am not trying to say that just because of this criminality the Bill should not go forward. We will not get rid of all criminality and, secondly, it will be a slow reduction. I accept that, but I think that the Government's angle is simply not credible among people in Northern Ireland. In fact, it gives far too much ammunition to a particular political party.
	I am not going to go through the figures for criminality and organised crime. Suffice it to say that counterfeiting alone is worth £140 million, which is £80 for every single person—baby, child, woman—in Northern Ireland. It is very big.
	If the Government are to say—I have heard them say it—that there is a reduction in criminality and organised crime, perhaps they would like to tell us how much the reduction is due to the IRA leadership. I will tell you: it is a nice, round zero. The reduction has taken place because of the security forces and of Customs and Excise on both sides of the border. You cannot honestly believe that the Sinn Fein/IRA leadership delivered "Slab" Murphy on a plate the other day. No—and it has not delivered anything else.
	Again, I am not saying that this is not a good Bill and that it should wait for these matters to be resolved, but if the Government stood up and said this kind of thing in Northern Ireland, they would gain a great deal more credibility than they have at the moment. This is very important. For opinions to change, we have to have a great deal more trust in the Government and a belief that they understand our position on this. I plead with the Government to do more to gain our respect. In saying that, I greatly support the Bill—it is tremendous that we have reached this stage—but let us have a bit of reality from the Government, not bluff from beginning to end.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the speeches that have been made. I do not think your Lordships would expect me on Second Reading to answer all the detailed points that have been raised—amendments will be brought forward and some have already been tabled—but I repeat my offer that if noble Lords have views that they wish to express by way of an amendment but are not clear about how to do so, they should contact the Northern Ireland Office and we will do our best to advise them. We shall try to be positive because I realise that time is short. I am grateful for the unanimous support for the Bill and for this attempt at devolution.
	A number of noble Lords made the same points and I shall try not to be repetitive. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a point that I could be accused of glossing over in my speech because it was contained in one sentence—that is, that there is still a lack of trust. I accept that. Trust has got to be built. It will be better built by people sitting around the table talking to each other, rather than by bellowing megaphone diplomacy through the media. But we have to be realistic—there is a lack of trust—and it is for Sinn Fein to do what it can to build trust with the unionists, and vice versa.
	As to the point about police support, which permeated many of the speeches—this is not a cop-out on my part; I said this the last time the point was raised—the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals, among other things, with the devolution of policing and aspects of the criminal justice system at an appropriate time, is wending its way through Westminster. This Bill will afford us an opportunity to debate the issue in some detail. It has not yet completed all its stages in the other place but, even if we do not complete it, it will arrive in this place before the Summer Recess. Support for the police is crucial. I have made it clear that if you do not support the police it means that you are on the side of the criminals, the muggers and the rapists. That applies to everyone.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me to reaffirm that there is to be no joint authority in plan B. I reaffirm exactly what I said when I answered the statement raised by many noble Lords. We will co-operate with the south where there are good grounds to do so—I have given examples such as the land border and the crucial issue of animal disease control—but, nevertheless, there will be no joint authority. This is UK territory and is under our sovereignty. It is the responsibility of the Government and we are not going to walk away from it. It is important that, where we can, we should have good co-operation with the south, but plan B does not mean joint authority. I cannot put it any clearer than that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also asked me, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about putting this on hold. I, too, saw Mr Lidington's comments over the weekend, but we are not going to do that. I reaffirm what I have already said: the longer we are there, the faster we will carry out the reform programme. As I have said, if Northern Ireland politicians really want to pull a fast one on direct rule Ministers—although we are not in competition—we will be happy for devolution to take place at the end of this month. We do not envisage that happening—but it can do and we hope that it will do. Certainly it would interfere with our process of reform, but it would be their choice. If the politicians want to do it that quickly, that is their choice. We are not stopping them. We will walk away. Our success is measured by how fast we are out of direct rule—I make no bones about that. But we will not put it on hold because we are not going to live on a wing and a prayer. There is a reform programme that we think the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a share of, and we are not going to hold it back for all sorts of procrastinations.
	I have no knowledge, seen no paperwork and been party to no conversations about secret deals with anybody. Everything is upfront—what you see is what you get. I understand what has happened in the past; I understand the suspicion. I invite the House—indeed, I invite all democrats—to be sceptical about everything, to be alert and to question the role of government and the political parties. But I say that only in the knowledge that I know of no plans for any secret deals. I would do the same myself if I were a Back-Bencher—indeed, as a Minister. I will not be put in a position of defending issues agreed by secret deals. There aren't any; I can reassure the House that I know of none whatever.
	On criminality and the overall issue of members of the IRA being involved in criminality, we have heard what the leadership and the IMC have said. That does not alter the actions of individuals. Whether they would do it with a nod and a wink, I do not know, but the forces of law and order, both sides of the border, are beginning to squeeze. I am not arguing about who is responsible for this and gets the credit. As a former Home Office Minister, I was responsible for taking through this House the Bill establishing the Assets Recovery Agency. I remember saying that it would be one of the most powerful public bodies in the country when it got going. The squeeze is beginning, and it is all part of that process.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, also mentioned the fear of secret deals. I respect his point but think that I have answered it. He made a wholly valid point, which I have no doubt we will discuss in more detail next Monday, about the Standing Orders. They are drafts and are being discussed at the moment. By the time we reach the Bill's further stages on Monday, things may be somewhat clearer. Under the 1998 legislation, for the purposes of the d'Hondt mechanism, the parties' strength was measured on the first day of meeting after an election. This is an Assembly—somebody wanted to call it a forum—although it is not the power-sharing Assembly. But 15 May will be the first meeting of those 108 Members after an election. Even I was surprised to find out, because I was not involved at the time, that the election took place while the Assembly was suspended. As these are draft Standing Orders, discussions are taking place on them, which I think is important.
	I cannot comment on the individual matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird; I am not briefed on them and it would probably not be right to do it anyway. However, even with the Assets Recovery Agency, the police and criminal justice process is proceeding. The "on the runs" legislation is not a runner; the police are best placed to make the best decisions in the light of the circumstances and the evidence and information they have.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, is quite right about the cross-border bodies. There will probably be a greater spotlight on their role, but they are set up for a reason. They will not become part of a joint authority but we will pursue the issue where we can in co-operation with the south.
	I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Dubs. He was not the only person to mention the recent British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body meeting, at which I was not present, and the positive approach taken by some DUP delegates in their questions and statements. I have read press reports of this and have seen people comment quite positively, which is a very good sign. I take his point about openness and transparency being needed with regard to the north/south bodies and the British-Irish Council. It is not always possible, but there should be as much openness as possible. We are moving into a new era with devolution. I am assuming that this time it will be successful. We will work for success. Our plan is that devolution will be for ever. We should not consider being negative about this. Therefore, as time passes, the nature of government in Northern Ireland—the Assembly and the co-operation between north and south—can be taken to far better heights democratically than now.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, need never apologise to me—unless she apologises to the House—for turning up late and missing all my speech. That is not a criticism. She made a fair point although I will not go down the route of discussing what happened with the communists of Eastern Europe and Islamic terrorists in the context of where we are today. I admit that we need replacements for the Diplock courts. I said when we passed the legislation on the extension to the Terrorism Bill, that we would have to come forward with replacements of the Diplock courts. That is crucial. She also raised the question of deals between other parties, even with the two Governments. I know of none. There are none planned and—I repeat—I have not been party to any conversation, overheard anything or seen any paperwork whatever in that respect.
	The noble Baroness was rather pushy about education. In a way, I take her point. She will soon have plenty of opportunity to discuss it. An order will come before the House in due course—not too far away; perhaps at the end of the month and certainly before the summer—on education, so we can have a one-off debate on that. It has to go through both Houses before it is approved. I have a note here about what we plan to lay before Parliament. In respect of education, we intend to implement the proposals for a revised curriculum arising from the Costello report and some minor amendments to education orders. The impact of any delay until November—effectively what the noble Baroness was asking for—would mean that planned changes to the curriculum giving pupils access to a more relevant curriculum due to come into force from September 2006 would be delayed a year. The statutory basis for ending selection and the introduction of curriculum entitlement framework delay is creating further uncertainty about new post-primary arrangements. However, as I said, an order will soon be going through Parliament and we can have a full and targeted debate because I will invite the House to approve the order.
	The longer we are there, the faster we will take the reform and the parties there know what they need to do to take control of the agenda. We are not standing in their way. If they want to come before the end of May, we will willingly step aside.
	I am grateful that the noble Viscount welcomed the Bill. The points that he made are legitimate. We are not talking up some aspects of the IMC report. There will always be allegations of spin. Nobody is saying that the position is perfect, but if we wait for that we will wait for ever. As I said in my introductory speech, people do not have to agree with each other. They do not have to agree with anything anyone says, but that does not have to stop them talking to each other. The best place for that is in the Assembly around the power-sharing executive table.
	As the noble Viscount said, there probably will be a slower reduction in crime. Nothing will stop overnight—nobody ever expected that. Some aspects are continuing. The IMC will talk about signs. However, the language used is carefully chosen and has to be sensitive. I would be reluctant to comment in detail about this. As a government, our task is to get all parties to the table.
	Our prime task as the Government is to get the Assembly and the power-sharing executive up and running, and to get them to the table in the spirit that each of them has gained something, that each of them feels they have had some success. The language of victory and defeat is in the past. They should all feel that they have gone to the table and achieved some success for those whom they represent. If they can all feel that, we have a really good foundation on which to build a far more peaceful, successful and prosperous Northern Ireland. That is where we start with the Bill.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am still slightly confused about how d'Hondt will operate. Will it be on the basis of the election result, or of membership of the Assembly when it meets on 15 May? As the Minister may well know, the DUP now has one fewer member than it had at that election.
	Secondly, since the impression has been given that there are no longer any punishment shootings, will the Minister confirm to the House that they still continue, including in one of the most strongly republican areas of Armagh city, where last night one man was hauled away by six men and shot?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on that latter point, all I have to go on is my constant clicking on to the BBC Northern Ireland website every hour, because that is the way one tries to keep up to date. That is not a criticism of my office, by the way. I have nothing to add to what I have seen on there. I have had no briefing, though I will get further information for next week.
	I could stand corrected, but, as I understand it, Members of the Assembly will have been invited some days beforehand to turn up on 15 May to register as an MLA and register their position in the party. I fully accept that there have been slight changes. However, I repeat what I said: the standing orders are in draft form, and they are being discussed at present. I hope to be back next Monday with a firmer answer. Let's face it, I had better be: it is 8 May next Monday and the 15th the Monday after, so people need to know where they stand. Within a couple of days of next Monday, the MLAs will receive the invitation to turn up the following week. They will be given around three days' notice. Indeed, we are hoping to secure Royal Assent for the Bill at the close of Business next Monday.
	I hope to have a firmer answer to what is quite a legitimate question. Obviously, operating d'Hondt is pretty crucial when you are dealing with some of those marginal numbers with the 11 ministries that were set up to reflect the party structure. There has been some doubt about that, but I hope to have specific answers by next Monday following discussions that are taking place in Belfast between now and then.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Exceptions and Requirements) (England) Order 2006

Baroness Hanham: rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the order laid before the House on 22 February (S.I. 2006/367) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, during the passage of the Housing Act 2004 there was a considerable discussion on both the principle and the practical aspects of the proposals for both interim and final empty dwelling management orders. The principle concerned then, as it does now, the propriety of a local authority confiscating, for want of a better word, even for worthy purposes, property that is privately owned. Despite reassurances from the Minister—then the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whom I am delighted to see in his place, though at this stage he is probably scarpering quickly—that empty dwelling management orders would be a last resort, and only after other voluntary measures had been sought to bring the properties back into occupation, fundamental concerns remain. That is why I have prayed against these orders today.
	I have read the consultation document that preceded the orders. Most of the issues raised during our debates on the Housing Bill were included but some concerns still remain. Where there is a regulation that has been promoted under the negative procedure, it is even more important that all substantial issues are covered. I have a number of questions for the Minister. In identifying a property that is deemed to be empty and to have been so for at least six months, from where will such information be gleaned? Will it be from members of the public who become fed up at seeing the house next door to them not lived in? Will it come from the council tax register, which is what is suggested? If it is to come from the council tax register and if the owner is paying council tax, then this may be a totally unsuitable vehicle for making a decision as to occupation.
	Will the Minister clarify the routes by which she believes—apart from the glaringly obvious situation where the property is becoming increasingly visibly dilapidated—such information may be garnered, and at what point the six months may start? A time scale of six months, from whenever it starts, may simply not be realistic. One of the aspects cited in the consultation document is for someone who has died. If someone has died it may take much longer than six months to ensure that probate is received and that a process can be carried out to identify what is going to happen.
	An example that was raised when we debated it in the House, which I did not see in the consultation document—forgive me if it was there—was a person who is in long-term care, a patient who is in hospital who is seriously ill or a resident in a care home, with a family who are unable or unwilling to sell the property and who may leave it sitting there because they are concerned that their mother, father or relative will be upset if the property were to pass out of their possession. What will stop a local authority, even if it has, and I believe it will, the flexibility to disregard such a property, taking action against it?
	During the passage of the Housing Bill we spoke about the management and the potential tenants if either an interim or, particularly, a final management order is made. Will the Minister indicate whether the management will be given to a registered social landlord, whether it will be left with the local authority itself, or whether it will be put into the private sector? Equally, will any tenants be found from the private sector or will they come from the council's waiting or homeless persons list; and what right under either circumstance would the proprietor—as I think the owner is called in the document—have to refuse to agree to a tenant or a number of tenants? One tenant may be put forward and he does not like them and another tenant may be put forward and he does not like them either. How long can that go on for?
	The regulations permit the owner to object to the proposed order to the residential property tribunal. However, this may put him to considerable expense of legal and surveyors' fees to protect himself from his property being put under an order. Will there be any compensation or costs available to him to help to oppose the local authority's application? I apologise for this list of questions, but they remain unanswered. What sort of tenancy agreement is it proposed would be given under an interim order not lasting for more than one year, so by its very nature the tenancy would be short; and under the final order, which can be anything up to seven years?
	Will the agreement with the tenant be made with the local authority or the owner or with the manager of the property, whoever that may be? Will it be a licence or will it be subject to a limited tenure? What will be the tenant's situation if the owner decides to sell the property within the duration of the order? Will he become the responsibility of the local authority and part of a priority housing list? I have considerable concern about the occupation of these properties, their terms and duration. While people may be grateful to have a home, even for a short time, these could be relatively short term and subject to limited tenancy rights.
	Of course I understand the dismay felt by neighbours about dilapidated or unoccupied properties, but to create a situation where an owner can be deprived of the right to make decisions about his own property, even if that can be done only with his agreement, is a serious step. It is hardly likely to be a measure which will have unalloyed co-operation. These orders will work only if the local authority is seen to be scrupulously fair in both its handling of the owner concerned and the management of the property and if the subsequent tenants know the limitation of their occupancy. I hope also that there will be effective monitoring of whether these orders become an acceptable and workable addition to the housing armoury. In her reply the Minister may like to tell us how this will be done.
	I felt it important to draw attention to these aspects. This is another step forward—quite a long step—in depriving people of their properties, even if they do have to consent to the orders being given. It is really important that we have an opportunity to discuss these issues. I beg to move.
	Moved to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the order laid before the House on 22 February (S.I. 2006/367) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I can be fairly brief. We continue to support empty dwelling management orders, as indeed we did when the Housing Act 2004 was passing through the House. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Maddock is in her place today. I am sure that she will have something to say on a matter for which she fought very hard during the passage of the Act.
	With around 700,000 empty dwellings in this country, we have an enormous waste of assets at a time when housing shortages are very clear. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned, there is the awful situation of blight. If your property was next to such a property, the idea that someone might be able to get something done would be an enormous relief. From that point of view we do not share many of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. Indeed, I take issue with her use of language. Using words such as "deprivation" is not very helpful when one is describing properties which are clearly unneeded at that point—otherwise they would not be standing empty for such a long time. I do not think it is particularly helpful to give an impression that rapacious local authorities are just watching the clock ticking for six months and will then leap in and take the house from you. Lots of safeguards are built into the legislation, including a tribunal process. So we do not share those concerns.
	I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Does she have any information on how prepared local authorities are for the introduction of EDMOs? With regard to other aspects of the Housing Act, such as HMO licensing, there is quite a mixed picture of preparedness. I should be interested to know what the Minister knows about local authorities. Following on from that—this is the one point where I would be in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—I should like to understand a little more about the process for monitoring how these orders will be used and what sort of effect they will have.
	My final point is to remind the Minister that by far the largest number of empty dwellings belongs to the public sector. I urge her to do all she can to ensure that local authorities receive the investment they need in order to bring that element of housing stock back into public use.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I particularly welcome these orders. All my life I have campaigned on empty properties. I can remember my early days in Southampton and the problems of road blight and desperate people—particularly in those days because squatting was a problem and if homes were empty you got squatters. Throughout my political career I have been involved with housing and the problems of finding enough homes for people. I have always wanted to find a way to help local authorities deal with these properties in a fair manner.
	During the passage of the Housing Act I think the Conservatives were much more supportive of the measure than they appear to be at the moment. At that time we discussed some of the issues that were raised today, particularly the issues surrounding probate. There are allowances for that. Nobody who supports this measure wants to act in a heavy handed way; the whole point is to deal with it as a real issue. Not only do empty properties make the environment look awful but they also attract crime, although we do not have quite the same problem with squatters as we used to have. Local people are always asking for something to be done about empty properties and these measures will give local authorities the tools to do it. We know that these properties can be properly managed because, even without these orders, many such properties have been dealt with by persuading their owners to improve them. While many empty properties are not owned by landlords, the proprietors may not know how to deal with them. This order will enable them to work with local authorities in bringing the properties up to a good condition to be used as homes. By golly, we need homes in this country because we have not kept up with housing provision. In the days when I started campaigning on this matter we were building many more homes than we are today. The orders will also enable owners to get some income from their property, which can be very helpful particularly for older people who have been left property and have no idea how to deal with it.
	I am disappointed that it has taken so long to introduce the order. As a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, I waxed lyrical about how pleased I was to see the order but it has taken a long time to introduce it. While I do not think it is the only reason, the delay is partly because a lot of time, energy and consultation has been put into trying to deal with many of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. However, most of these issues were raised during the passage of the Housing Bill.
	I should have declared an interest when I began speaking because I am patron of the Empty Homes Agency. It is an issue I care about. This morning I listened to a report about a sustainability task force that the Government have set up. It was about how we can all think about sustainability in our lives and if ever there was an issue concerning sustainability, this is it. We are building far too many new houses that use all sorts of new resources, while empty properties do not require the same amount of resources to bring them up to a good standard for people to live in. When I hear the phrase, "Vote blue, get green", I have to say that I am not entirely convinced. I agree with my noble friend that monitoring is important. Despite my enthusiasm for this matter, I recognise that people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, are worried about it. It is important for them that this is properly monitored. My plea to the Government is that it would be better if they reduced VAT on improvements to homes. In that way we would get much better value for money from the properties we want to deal with.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I feel very much like a newcomer to this debate. I can see that the noble Baronesses had hours of fun at every stage of the Housing Bill. I will try hard to answer the questions that have been posed. I hope that previous speakers will forgive me for using a rather long speaking note for this debate because it is important to get this on the record. A useful opportunity has been created by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and I want to thank all the noble Baronesses for their detailed support in principle. There has been a great deal of common ground. I wish to spell out why we believe it is essential to give local authorities these powers. I will come in due course to the business of guidance, monitoring and relative preparedness.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said it all when she described the impact that empty homes can have. Not only are they unsightly and unattractive, but they can and do become a playground for anti-social behaviour—everything from squatting and graffiti to vandalism, drug dealing and arson. Bringing such properties back into use is in the interest of the owners as much as of the communities and, of course, it makes more stock available to meet housing need.
	It is terribly important that we should support the good neighbour, too. When we have situations that compromise the pride that people take in their homes and their neighbourhoods, we should do something about it. I see almost daily examples in correspondence of the ways in which people's lives are changed by bad neighbours and of the impact of empty and badly maintained property. It is terrible to live with such situations, which are very frustrating and a great worry. If you have an empty home next door that might be broken into and vandalised, that is a constant preoccupation, apart from the impact on the value of your property.
	Many people feel trapped and helpless about doing anything. They turn to the local authority in the expectation that it can do something, but the local authority may find it difficult to sort out the situation, for reasons that the noble Baronesses will know. The owner may be unwilling to co-operate or they may not be easily traced—in some instances, they may have disappeared. The only available powers that the local authority may have are those under the Environmental Protection Act to deal with nuisance, such as limited powers for clearing rubbish away.
	One or two empty properties is bad enough, but when you have whole streets of houses that have become derelict, there is a culture of underinvestment, which is extremely negative, and a spiral of decline. Previous to the introduction of EDMOs, local authorities had the power to embark on compulsory purchase proceedings, but those were complicated, time-consuming and prohibitively expensive, and not many orders were ever used. Language is very important here. We think that compulsory purchase is not always the most effective means of addressing the fundamental issue, which is certainly not confiscation, as the noble Baroness termed it. The fundamental issue is occupation, rather than ownership. That is what we are talking about and it is where this bites.
	The primary objective was always to give local authorities an effective tool to bring empty homes back into occupation without interfering with ownership. There were a number of things that local authorities could do. For example, they could enter into voluntary leasing arrangements, as some have very successfully done. Some local authorities have been more active than others on this. However, those arrangements can work effectively only where there is a credible threat of compulsion to back them up. The intention was that the availability of EDMOs would give local authorities more scope to reach agreement with owners on how to get their properties back into use.
	We consider that the core of the way forward for local authorities is agreement and negotiation. It is essential for local authorities to work with owners to persuade them of the financial benefits. But where consent cannot be secured, we think that it is reasonable under certain circumstances for local authorities to have powers to bring empty homes back into use without the need to obtain the consent of the owners.
	Let me turn now to the two statutory instruments, which are an important part of the overall legislative package. The Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Exceptions and Requirements) Order sets out the circumstances in which a local authority is not allowed to make an EDMO and makes further provisions concerning the procedures that it must go through in seeking authorisation to make an interim EDMO. The order comes with two important protections. The Act itself gives the local authority the discretion to make an interim EDMO lasting 12 months against a dwelling that has been unoccupied for a period of at least six months where voluntary approaches have been exhausted. It is very important to stress that. We also accept that there are many valid circumstances in which it is acceptable for dwellings to be unoccupied for periods in excess of six months at a time. Secondly, the local authority must, before making an application to a residential property tribunal, have properly considered non-statutory measures to secure occupation.
	There is a six-month general exception period—I will now start answering some of the questions that the noble Baroness put to me. The Act provides that a dwelling must be wholly unoccupied for at least six months, or longer as may be prescribed, before an interim EDMO can be made. The noble Baroness asked: how do our local authorities will get through the information barrier, how will they identify property and when does the six months count from? They are already identifying empty homes in a number of ways. It includes information from council tax but it also includes the sort of information that local authorities are gathering as they look at their housing market needs and at the state of the environmental needs of the neighbourhood. Some information comes on a personal level, from neighbours for example. Some comes from more systematic surveys of the needs of stock and the people on the waiting list and the attendant information that comes from that.
	The six months starts from when the local authority identifies the property to be vacant. That could be months after it has been vacant, so it can be quite notional. After the consultation period we have agreed not to extend that six months, not only because there is an in-built delay, as I have just described, but to extend it would simply have introduced further delays. When lines are drawn in legislation, anomalies are nearly always created. So whether we had said 12, 24 or even 36 months, it would have been more difficult to administer but also local authorities would have had to have waited much longer to deal with properties.
	These are the earliest times in which an interim EDMO could be made. It does not mean that in every case local authorities would wish to proceed at this point in the vacancy process. These are discretionary orders and it will be for local authorities to judge if and when to make an application to a residential property tribunal. Six months will count from the date on which the local authority can establish the dwelling became unoccupied.
	The order also provides for a whole range of specific exceptions. It is important to run through these because we can put them in order and I can answer some of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness as I go through them. In many cases a property will be excepted indefinitely by virtue of meeting these requirements. What we were mindful of in creating 10 categories is that there had to be a genuine reason for the vacancy. We recognise and accept that in many cases dwellings cannot be occupied all the time and their use is dictated by factors that even the most well intentioned owners cannot control. These 10 categories were generated following extensive consultation. For example, we talked to the representatives of the Country Land and Business Association in relation to agricultural dwellings.
	The first exception covers dwellings normally considered to be the sole or principal residence of the owner, who is absent either because he is residing temporarily elsewhere or, more specifically, because he is being cared for elsewhere—in a care home, for example. The second exception deals with second homes and holiday homes. We recognise that in some cases the six-month exception will not always be long enough to exempt these, particularly where the property is not used during the winter months.
	The third category excepts dwellings that are genuinely on the market—either for sale or for letting. It is an important exception because we are trying to encourage owners to sell properties that they have no plans to re-use. We are satisfied that this does not provide a loophole because the intention to sell will have to be determined by the residential property tribunal.
	The fourth category deals with dwellings comprised within agricultural holdings. The next two categories deal with housing which is conditional on employment and clergy housing, on which there was a surprising amount of consensus in the consultative process.
	The seventh and eighth categories deal specifically with property that cannot in any case be occupied due to the fact that it is the subject of either civil or criminal investigations or proceedings—for example, where assets are frozen in divorce or bankruptcy cases. Their inclusion in the order helps to reinforce the fact that local authorities cannot override judicial proceedings.
	The ninth category excepts dwellings where a mortgage lender has repossessed the property and it is in the interests of lenders to sell or otherwise dispose of such property quickly. Where the properties have previously been empty, this process can obviously take longer than would normally be the case.
	Finally, but certainly not least, the order excepts dwellings where the owner has died. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, this is a very sensitive area and one where it is worth going into a bit more detail. No doubt we have all had experience of someone dying and the home being unoccupied for a period while the estate is transferred. It is a very difficult period, with probate to deal with on top of the loss of the family member. We feel it is important that people are not rushed into making decisions about the possessions of their loved ones until they are ready to do so.
	Many problems caused by empty homes stem from an extended period of vacancy following the death of the previous occupier, so the order prescribes that a dwelling is excepted for six months from the date on which the grant of representation is obtained—that is, from the date of probate. We believe that that is humane and sensible because it is the point at which the estate is transferred and relatives can begin to decide what to do. We have considered complex cases—some of which may be in administration, making probate difficult to obtain—but, even in those cases, again the date of probate will be the effective date. I know that the noble Baroness has had discussions with her colleagues about some of those complexities.
	I also want to touch on two areas where we decided not to make specific exceptions, as these are important, too. The first relates to dwellings that are unoccupied as a result of repairs or improvements, and the second relates to properties where planning or building regulations approval to redevelop is awaited. We consider that such properties should normally fall outside the scope of EDMOs because, in the first case, people are trying to improve the condition and, in the second case, they are dealing with the planning process, and in both instances there is a reasonable chance of the homes being occupied in the near future.
	In terms of the support that we are giving local authorities, technical guidance will be put before them as soon as possible. It will cover these sorts of issues and will assist them through the process of which they will need to be aware. In these cases, we did not prescribe a blanket exception because we thought that that would create a loophole which could prevent a local authority legitimately pursuing cases where the dwelling was not genuinely under repair or where a planning application was made simply as a way of frustrating the order. The matter will be left to the judgment of local authorities and residential property tribunals, and we believe that that creates sufficient scope to deal with such cases. The exception categories were widely supported during the consultation exercise. Two-thirds of respondents agreed with the exceptions and came forward with additional ones, such as clergy housing and care arrangements. Therefore, it was a very useful exercise.
	I shall now answer some other specific questions before I go on to talk about the regulations and the protections that we are building in. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked who would manage the orders and what types of tenants would be placed in the houses that were freed up. There could be a variety of management arrangements, and it is up to the local authority to decide what is most appropriate. It could be the local authority, an RSL or the private sector. Likewise, the person who is placed in the property has to be agreed with the owner of the property—I shall come on to that. It could be someone on the housing list, a homeless family, a key worker or a private renter under different circumstances. Again, large elements of discretion will be available to local authorities.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked me about the sale of property. The owner of a property has a right to sell at any time—this concerns occupation and not ownership—but to do so he could seek early revocation of the EDMO, if it had gone through, to enable him to sell it. A local authority could revoke an EDMO early if it were satisfied that the owner was serious about selling. If a local authority were to refuse a request to revoke an order early, the owner can appeal to the RPT. A whole series of rights of appeal is built in.
	If the property is occupied by tenants placed by the council, the council cannot revoke the order, unless it simply replaced it with a final EDMO, without the owner's consent. That ensures that owners are not left to manage tenancies that are set up by a local authority. If a local authority wishes to revoke an EDMO in those circumstances, it has either to move the occupants out or to agree with the owner an arrangement to let them stay. A local authority can refuse to revoke an EDMO early if doing so would leave the local authority in debt. Then another arrangement could kick in, whereby the owner agrees to pay the outstanding amount. There is a variety of different processes through which one can go.
	On compensation, because an EDMO is a control on the use of the property rather than deprivation, it does not give rise to an automatic right to compensation. The person against whom the order is made is not entitled to compensation. He would receive any surplus income following deduction of the local authority's relevant expenditure in managing and maintaining the property. There may be more costs involved in managing and maintaining some properties. A third party to an EDMO—a person with an interest in the property who is not the relevant proprietor—could ask a local authority to pay compensation for any interference to his rights as a result of the making of an EDMO, but if that is refused he can go back to the property tribunal and work through that process again. Those are exactly the kind of things that we hope to be able to clarify to local authorities in due course.
	On types of tenancies for an interim EDMO and a final EDMO, to begin with, no tenancy can be granted without the consent of the owner, as I shall explain later. For the final and the interim EDMOs the Act makes it clear that a local authority is not to be treated as the legal owner and it may not sell or charge or make any other disposition of any such estate. The Act does not restrict the type of tenancy to be created, but a local authority will need to protect the interests of the owner, so the type of tenancy or licence would vary. It would have to be one that would enable the property to be vacated on a period of notice served by the local authority. Again, we are building into the flexibility available protection for the owner.
	On monitoring, I have talked about "exceptions". There is scope to except additional circumstances if it is considered necessary. We would do that by monitoring the impact and the operation of the legislation very carefully over the next three years. We are able to make changes to secondary legislation if needed. I believe that the 10 categories that we have identified and prescribed cover most situations. Clearly, we shall be interested in monitoring the operation of the order as a whole.
	The regulations are a little more technical; they deal with supplemental provisions. Where an EDMO or any other type of management order is made on a leasehold property, the local authority is treated, as the Act describes it, as a "lessee" of the property. That is to say the authority will take on certain responsibilities of the leaseholder while the management order is in force. For example, it will be responsible for paying any ground rent or service charges demanded by the freeholder and can challenge the reasonableness of such charges. However, the Act makes it clear that the local authority does not acquire any estate or interest in the property and therefore is not entitled to sell, charge or make any other disposition of the estate or interest.
	When the Bill was passing through this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, rightly pointed out that special consideration should be given to the way in which management orders impact on the rights and responsibilities of leaseholders. We considered his point and the Bill was amended to allow for that.
	The order provides some clarity about the effect of management orders on leasehold properties and the responsibilities taken on by local authorities. The regulations provide that a local authority, having made a management order, must serve notice on the person who granted the lease, detailing the effect of the management order and specifying that any demands for payment of ground rent or service charge should be served on the authority while the management order is in force. Once such notice has been served, any demand for payment of ground rent or service charges must be served on the local authority, which is then under a duty to ensure that these charges are paid on time.
	Other than that, we expect that the existing rights and responsibilities under leasehold arrangements will continue as they would otherwise, despite the existence of a management order. The regulations do not impinge on the ownership of leases and do not prevent leaseholders from exercising their rights—such as to extend their lease or to buy the freehold.
	Before I wind up by listing the protections built in, I return to the question of how prepared local authorities are. We talked briefly about the experience of local authorities in voluntary leasing arrangements. We are aware that this is a new departure. The Local Government Agency and the Empty Homes Agency are to undertake a series of training events for local authority officers on the approaches to using EDMOs. Incidentally, we are very grateful to the Empty Homes Agency for the excellent work that it has done over the years and for the role of the noble Baroness in it. Those are likely to begin in June, prior to commencement of the tribunal approval regime on 6 July. We think that most local authorities will want time to consider the powers properly before proceeding. As the power is discretionary, they do not have to swing into action until they feel that they are properly prepared. I am sure that those training events will be of great help to them.
	It is obviously important to get beyond the headlines about homes being seized by overzealous councils. I was grateful for the warm support and the long history of the noble Baronesses in enabling that. It is important to remind ourselves that the provisions, coupled with the secondary legislation, will ensure that EDMOs are made only where there is no alternative.
	Perhaps I may very briefly outline how the rights of property owners have been positively protected throughout the process. There are comprehensive checks and balances. First, the onus is on the local authority to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner that it is considering making an EDMO. That is nothing to do with the owner, the local authority must do the job itself. Therefore, it must ascertain what is the situation in relation to the dwelling. If the owner has plans to use the dwelling, the local authority may not proceed. Even if a local authority considers that it has grounds to make the order, it must balance the rights of the owner and the interests of the wider community. If there is any doubt that making the order would not serve the wider interest, the authority may not proceed.
	Having ascertained that it would be appropriate to make an interim EDMO, the next step is to make an application to the RPT. The tribunal may authorise the making of an order only if it in turn is satisfied on a number of points, not least those set out in the order. There is a strict series of requirements in the order about the efforts that must have been made to inform the owner, to obtain information and to prove that the information is right.
	First, it must be satisfied that the dwelling has been wholly unoccupied for at least six months. It must consider the exceptions. Even if a dwelling is not excepted, it would not automatically be subject to an interim EDMO. Before authorising an order, the tribunal must first be satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the dwelling becoming occupied in the near future. Moreover, the tribunal will not approve an order if the owner can persuade the tribunal that he intends to occupy or sell the dwelling in the near future. It must also be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the dwelling becoming occupied if an EDMO is made. That means, in effect, that the local authority must consider the local market conditions and decide whether it could find tenants to occupy it. The tribunal must also be satisfied that the local authority has complied with its duties in making the application. It may not authorise the order if the local authority has not made reasonable efforts to ascertain the owner's intentions. Finally, the tribunal must also balance the interests of the community with the effect of the order on the rights of the owner and others with an interest in the dwelling.
	Once an interim EDMO has been approved, the local authority cannot place tenants in the dwelling without the consent of the owner—an issue that the noble Baroness raised. This provides a final opportunity for an agreement about occupation to be reached that would allow the order to be revoked. Only if the owner refused to give his consent would a local authority be entitled to make a final EDMO. I believe that those procedures, coupled with the rights of appeal and revocation in the legislation, ensure that an EDMO cannot be made for arbitrary reasons; they are a very proportionate response to a very serious problem. Our approach and the wide range of discussions we held in the two consultation exercises on both primary and secondary legislation proved that most consultees overwhelmingly support our proposals.
	I wish I could say something more positive about VAT to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who made a very warm and gracious speech. We have this exchange about once a fortnight in this House; I am afraid that any further VAT changes would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make, as the noble Baroness well knows.
	In conclusion, I cannot resist quoting two very supportive statements. One is from the British Property Federation—a very welcome, if not unusual, source. In the Greater London Authority report, Empty Homes in London 2005-6, it said:
	"We support the additional measures being introduced in the 2004 Housing Act. We believe these strike a good balance between the legitimate protection of property rights and tackling the problems of empty property. We hope that in all but a few cases such powers will not need to be used, but they are there if required and collectively during 2006 all of us with an interest in empty homes must educate the wider public about them".
	Amen to that. It continues:
	"There is a lot of misinformation already out there, but contrary to some of the reports in the tabloid press you will not go away on a fortnight's leave and find your local authority has let out your house! What you may find, however, is that through the use of such powers that grotty house at the end of your street with the overgrown garden will slowly return to being an asset to your neighbourhood, rather than a liability. The Federation . . . looks forward to 2006 with a great deal of optimism. The new powers will provide new opportunities to raise the profile of this important issue".
	The Empty Homes Agency supports this in a different context. It says:
	"We have been promoting the idea of Empty Homes Management Orders for some time . . . With nearly three quarters of a million empty properties in Britain we need a range of measures to bring them back into use. The new measure should encourage owners to bring properties back into use voluntarily, helping to ease the chronic housing shortage. It's a win-win situation for empty property owners who need help to make their assets work for them, and for those in housing need who will have greater choice".
	We estimate that some 1,000 orders will be made each year—three per local authority. I would be surprised if many of those orders proceeded beyond the interim EDMO stage. We will see a cultural change, and a change in attitude and behaviour, as the true impact of the incentives and the opportunities for owners to bring empty homes back into use are seen and appreciated.
	We should all be proud of the measure. It is long overdue but, I think, highly effective. It has been excellent to get the support of parties around the House throughout the passage of the Bill and now in these final stages, so I am grateful to everyone who has spoken this evening.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I hope that she will not be embarrassed by my saying that she is rapidly getting a reputation for being a Minister who is direct and responsive, and who replies verbally to questions. I thank her for that.
	Today's debate has been important. We discussed these matters during the process of the Bill, but a long consultation on which these final orders will be based has taken place since then. It has been important to see how the whole process has eased a little here and there, and how much attention has been given to matters which I and others raised. The problem with negative orders is that one does not see the results. The information which the Minister has given is important. The original order looks as though it will be a useful addition and not be terribly restrictive and directive as some people feared. It will be useful in what we all know is the unsatisfactory situation of properties being left to deteriorate without anybody apparently being able to do anything about it.
	I am grateful to the Minister. In view of her responsive and helpful reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing (Management Orders and Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Supplemental Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006

Baroness Hanham: had given notice of her intention to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 22 February (S.I. 2006/368). [26th Report from the Merits Committee].

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall not move the Motion.

Motion not moved.
	House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.